IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10808 of 2006 ARUN KUMAR PANDEY, SON OF BAIRISTAR PANDEY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE – BASDIC, P.S. – KOPA, DISTRICT – SARAN. ……… PETITIONER. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE SECRETARY, BIHAR STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA. 3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION, PATNA. …………. RESPONDENTS. ----------- 02/ 11.02.2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the State. Prayer of the petitioner is for a direction to the respondents for allowing him a chance to appear in the Driving Test Examination for his selection for the post of Driver since he could not participate in Driving Test Examination held in between 17.7.2006 to 19.7.2006 on account of his absence and getting this information on the last date of the Driving Test. Petitioner in response to Advertisement No. 1605 had applied for the post of Driver and also appeared in the written examination, he was declared successful in the written examination. Subsequently for driving test dates were fixed and published in the news paper. Candidates, whose names were in the first list of successful candidates of written examination, the test was held in between 7.7.2006 to 13.7.2006. Candidates, who names were in the second list of successful 2 candidates in written examination, the date of driving test was fixed in between 17.7.2006 to 19.7.2006. Petitioner being the successful candidate of second test had to appear in the driving test in between 17.7.2007 to 19.7.2006. A notice was published in the news paper of 16.7.2006, which also includes that the left over candidates of first list, who could not participate in between 7.7.2006 to 13.7.2006 would also participate in the driving test going to be held in between 17.7.2006 to 19.7.2006. Petitioner on account of his absence could not participate during the scheduled time as per the notice for the driving test. Petitioner had made a prayer on the ground that this is discrimination in between the candidates of first list and the second list. The left over candidates of first list were given opportunity to participate in the next driving test going to be held in between 17.7.2006 to 19.7.2006, but the left over candidates of second list were not given any such option. Admittedly the selection process had been initiated in the year, 2006 and it was also completed in the same year. Once the selection process is completed 3 and everything is over, no direction can be issued to the authorities to re-open the matter. The ground taken by the petitioner regarding discrimination is also not apparent, considering the fact that candidate is required to be vigilant but conduct of the petitioner shows that he was not vigilant. Two notices were published for appearing in the driving test, one in between 7.7.2006 to 13.7.2006 and another between 17.7.2006 to 19.7.2006. None of the notice could be noticed by the petitioner as per his own admission till 18.7.2006. Considering these facts, I do not find any merit in the application. It is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J.)