Chief Justice Bajanthri headed Division Bench upholds order by Justice Dr. Anshuman

In Anup Kumar Chaubey vs. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Patna High Court's Division Bench of Chief Justice P.  B. Bajanthri and Justice Alok Kumar Sinha delivered a 2-long judgement dated October 14, 2025, wherein, it dismissed the LPA. The judgement was authored by the Chief Justice Bajanthri. 

It concluded:"Appellant is a candidate for recruitment to the posto of Constable pursuant to the advertisement issued on 11.11.2020. Appellant has presented CWJC No. 14235 of 2024 in the year 2024, whereas the select list was notified before filing of the writ petition on 02.09.2022 and it must have been operated for the purpose of issuance of order of appointment to such of those selected candidates." 

Justice Bajanthri added:"In this backdrop, the petitioner in all fairness should have assailed the selection and appointment of last candidate to the post of Constable under EWS category. In the event of allowing the present lis the third party right would be affected who is not before this Court. For non-assailing the select list or last selected candidate under EWS category, the appellant has not made out a case so as to examine the grievance of the appellant."

The three other respondents were: Director General of Police, Bihar, Chairman, Central Recruitment Board (Constable Recruitment), Patna and Secretary, Central Recruitment Board (Constable Recruitment), Patna. 

The appellant had assailed the order dated September 19, 2024 by Dr. Anshuman, the Single Judge passed in Anup Kumar Chaubey vs. Th State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2024). Dr Anshuman had dismissed the writ petition. 

The writ application was filed for directing the respondent authorities to select the petitioner as Constable in District Police, who has been qualified for selection on the post of constable after participation in written test, physical test etc. but has not been selected only for the reason that the cut-off date of the date of birth was set at March 29, 1996 and the date of birth of the petitioner was May 11, 1996, which was in contradiction of the advertisement where it was mentioned that 18-25 years of age were the cut off date.

The petitioner's counsel had submitted that petitioner had moved before this Hon’ble Court in C.W.J.C. No.18420 of 2022 in which vide order dated April 23, 2024, writ petition was dismissed granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authority for redressal of his grievances. He also submitted that petitioner had filed the representation and upon the petitioner’s representation, order was passed by the respondent authority and was communicated to the petitioner on May 14, 2024. The petitioner being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the respondent authority, had preferred the writ petition.

The counsel of the Central Selection Board of Constable submitted that it was categorically mentioned in the letter dated May 14, 2024 that petitioner could not be selected due to deficiency in the date of birth. 

In his order, Justice Dr. Anshuman had concluded: "Upon perusal of the aforesaid letter, it transpires to this Court that the deficiency in the date of birth is clearly mentioned. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the respondent authority." The Division Bench has upheld this order.