Sudhir Kumar vs District Selection Committee through District Magistrate, Jamui

Court
Patna High Court

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.13 of 2025
CNR No. BRHC010007342025
======================================================
Sudhir Kumar S/o Late Dwarka Ram Resident of behind Sales Tax Office,
Kalyanpur, Ward No.- 20, P.S. and Dist.- Jamui.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. District Selection Committee through District Magistrate, Jamui Jamui.
2. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger.
5. District Magistrate cum Chairman, District Selection Committee, Jamui.
6. Nazarat Deputy Collector, Jamui.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Adv.
For the State : Mr. Ravi Kumar, GP-11
Mr. Akshay Lal Prasad, AC to GP-11
Mr. Sumit Kumar Jha, AC to GP-11
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 27-10-2026
This appeal lays a challenge to an order dated
25.11.2024 whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant
herein was dismissed. The writ petition before the learned
Single Judge was a second round of litigation inasmuch as the
appellant had approached this Court in CWJC No. 12165 of
2015 which was disposed of on 25.06.2018 with direction to the
District Magistrate to take a final decision on the representation

Patna High Court L.P.A No.13 of 2025 dt.27-10-2026
2/5
submitted by the appellant. Pursuant thereto, the representation
of the appellant was came to be rejected on 15.02.2019 on the
ground that the disability certificate of the appellant is not in
consonance with the proforma prescribed in Resolution No. 62
dated 05.01.2007.
2. Suffice to state the learned Single Judge dismissed
the writ petition by stating in paragraph no.12 onwards as
under :
“12. From the materials available on
record, it appears that the petitioner along with
others had submitted their application along
with their educational and disability certificate
in terms of the advertisement as contained in
Memo No. 490/Estb. Dated 19.10.2012 for
empanellement against the vacant and
sanctioned post of Group-D. The petitioner
secured 1538 position in the panel. Out of the
empanelled candidates, 253 empanelled
persons were duly appointed in different
offices. However, the claim of the petitioner
was not considered under the disability quota
on account of the fact that he failed to submit
their disability certificate in prescribed
proforma as required under the Government
Resolution No. 62 dated 05.01.2007.
13. In identical facts and situation
where one of the candidates, namely, Jitendra
Ram, whose application under the disability
quota has not been accepted on account of the
same being not filed under the prescribed
proforma; the action of the respondents was
questioned by the said candidate before the
learned Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C.

Patna High Court L.P.A No.13 of 2025 dt.27-10-2026
3/5
No. 5811 of 2015, it came to be rejected. On
being aggrieved, the said candidate
approached before the learned Division Bench
of this Court in L.P.A. No. 2044 of 2016,
wherein the learned Division Bench taking note
of the prescription of the advertisement held
that even though in the advertisement issued on
th
20 October, 2012, it is only stated that the
disablement certificate should be produced but
since the resolution has been passed by the
State Government with regard to considering
the cases of disabled persons for employment
in Government service in terms of the
Resolution No.62 dated 05.01.2007,
contemplating proforma of the disablement
certificate, the same is required to be followed.
The proforma in two pages mandates the
Medical Board to conduct various
examinations and submit the certificate in the
prescribed proforma. The learned Court find
that the certificate produced by the petitioner
does not meet the requirement of resolution and
thus did not interfere in the order of the learned
Single Judge. The learned Division Bench also
observed that merely because in the
advertisement there was no stipulation with
regard to the certificate being in any particular
form ignoring the requirement of the State
Government Policy and Statute, no relief could
be granted to the petitioner.
14. Suffice it to observe that once the
Government has come out with a resolution
prescribing the prescription under the
disability certificate is to be prepared and
obtained from the authority concerned, any
defiance of such prescriptions would certainly
invalidate the certificates and on the basis of
such invalid certificate(s), no person can make
a rightful claim either for appointment or any

Patna High Court L.P.A No.13 of 2025 dt.27-10-2026
4/5
other benefits under the State.
15. It would be worth noticing that
the observation(s), if any, while parting with
the case, cannot be treated as ratio of the
decision, once it does not decide any issue.
16. The reliance of the petitioner on
the observation made in the order passed in
Civil Review No. 525 of 2018, which finally
came to be dismissed, does not decide an issue
rather it is a concern expressed by the learned
Court in favour of the petitioner that in the
facts of that case, he ought to apply for a fresh
certificate in the prescribed proforma in order
to sustain his claim for disablement.
17. Admittedly, the advertisement for
empanellement was issued way back in the
year 2012 and now the new rule came into
effect with a clear prescription that all the
appointments even for the Group-D post shall
be held through a written examination; all the
panels prepared earlier cease to exist.
18. In view of the discussions made
hereinabove and the decision of the learned
Division Bench of this Court, this Court does
not find any merit in the present writ petition.
Accordingly, it stands dismissed.”
3. The submissions of learned counsel for the
appellant are primarily the same as were urged before the
learned Single Judge. In other words, his submission is that the
changed format of the disability certificate not being in public
domain, the appellant could not get a certificate as per that
format and the appellant cannot be punished for the same. The
other submission is that none of the candidates having disability

Patna High Court L.P.A No.13 of 2025 dt.27-10-2026
5/5
have been appointed to the post in question.
4. We are unable to agree with both the submissions
inasmuch as the selection having taken place in the year 2012,
much after the Resolution of 2007, the appellant should have
been aware of the new format which will govern the disability
of a person. Having not done that, the respondents have rightly
rejected the candidature of the appellant.
5. We are also of the view that this Court cannot grant
appointment to the appellant when the disability certificate
submitted by the appellant was at variance with the disability
certificate required under the Resolution of 2007.
6. We dismiss the appeal. No costs.

(V. Kameswar Rao, CJ)
(Partha Sarthy, J)
shailendra/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 30.10.2026
Transmission Date