IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13356 of 2001 UMESH SAH, son of Sri Parase Sah, resident of village- Lakhreon, P. O. Siwan, Dist. Siwan. …Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 2. Director General Cum Inspector General of Police, Bihar, Patna. 3. D.I.G. of Police, Magadhe Range, Gaya. 4. S. P. Jehanabad. …Respondents. ----------- For the Petitioner Mr. Awadhesh Kr. Mishra, Adv. Mr. Vijay Kumar, Adv. For the State Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Adv. ------- 6. 06.07.2009. Heard learned counsel for the parties. It may be that the petitioner may have helped the police in nabbing the criminals and recovery of arms and ammunitions but then that by itself cannot be a ground for appointment on the post of constable by ignoring the statutory provisions of Bihar Police Manual. Learned counsel for the State has rightly placed reliance on a division bench judgment of this Court in the case of Hemkant Jha Vs. State of Bihar & Ors; reported in 2007 (3) PLJR 657. This aspect of the matter has been considered at length by a division bench of this Court in the case of Hemkant 2 Jha(supra) and this Court is not only bound by the ratio laid down by the division bench specially when the facts of this case also are absolutely identical. There cannot be two view at least with regard to prayer of the petitioner to uphold his appointment as a Constable by setting aside the impugned order of termination of service is based on a consideration that the petitioner had helped the police in nabbing the criminals and recovery of arms and ammunition and that his appointment on the aforesaid basis was made on that following the relevant rules. Counsel for the petitioner, however, would like to place his reliance on an unreported order of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Another vs. Mithlesh Kumar Singh Special Leave to Appeal(Civil)……./2008/ CC- 3508/2008. In the opinion of this Court, the aforementioned order of the Hon’ble Apex Court merely dismissing the special leave petition would not amount to affirmance of 3 law by this Court in the order dated 23.5.2007 passed in LPA No. 659 of 2007 against which such special leave petition was filed. Moreover, it would appear that in order dated 23.5.2007 this Court has basically concentrated on a case of education department and that too on a post of peon for whom there was no such statutory rule as for the police constable in the Bihar Police Manual. Counsel for the State is correct in submitting that at least the same cannot be an authority for police constable, there being a direct case of police department. The judgment of Hemkant Jha (Supra) plainly and squarely applicable in this case and to that extent this Court would find that the view taken by the Division Bench in the case of Mithlesh Kumar Singh(supra) will have no applicability in the facts of this case. That being so, there is no merit in this writ application and the same is accordingly dismissed. kanchan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)