IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.19258 of 2010 SAMANT KUMAR son of Sri Chandradeo Prasad Roy, Resident of Kadwa Paraspur, P.S. Khainpur, Kadwa, Distt. Bhagalpur. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Forensic Science (Police Laboratory) Bihar, Patna. 5. The Inspector General © C.I.D. Bihar, Patna. 6. The D.I.G. (C.I.D.) Bihar, Patna. 7. The S.P. © C.I.D. Bihar, Patna. ----------- 2 26.11.2010 The present writ application has been filed questioning the certificate issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Bihar, Patna with regard to three persons, namely, Dr. Sharda Nand Singh, Raju Choudhary and Shyam Kumar Singh vide letters contained in Memo Nos. 1501, 1502 and 1503 dated 11.11.2008. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that the above mentioned three persons have not completed the conditions as prescribed under Rule 450 of the Police Manual and hence their appointments should have been closed. The petitioner seems to be student of Medical College having charged of interpolation in the answer sheets which is apparent from the report sent by the expert. Even though counsel for the petitioner has tried to support his case by submitting that the aforementioned three persons are not expert within the meaning of Rule 450 of the Police Manual to verify the writing and therefore the certificate issued by the Deputy Inspector General of Police, Criminal Investigation Department, Bihar, 2 Patna is bogus one. Having heard counsel for the parties, this Court is not satisfied with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner for the reason that Rule 450 of the Police Manual specified the meaning of Expert, which reads as follows:- “Expert means an officer who has been passed as competent to examine, classify and give an expert opinion on finger impressions and holds a certificate to that effect.” Apart from that, the concerned persons, namely the above three persons have not been made parties to this writ application and therefore on this ground alone this writ application is not maintainable. Considering the above facts and circumstances of this case, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed at the admission stage itself. Abhay Kumar (T. Meena Kumari, J.)