IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2389 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12615 of 2015 ====================================================== Indu Sinha Parmeshwar Dayal resident of vill Ankari PS Narhat Dist Nawada. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar and Ors 2. The Principal Secretary 3. Human Resource Department, Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary Bihar staff Selection Commission. Patna PO Vetenary College, Patna-14 5. The Director, Secondary Education Bihar, Patna null null 6. The District Education Bihar, Patna 7. The District Education Officer, Nawada Dist Nawada null null ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rabindra Prasad Singh, Adv. For the Opposite Party/s : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Adv. For State : Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-15 For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Sr. Adv. (BSSC) Ms. Kanupriya, Adv. Mr. Abhishek Anand, Adv. Ms. Aastha Prakash, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJ KUMAR ORAL ORDER 5 20-08-2026 Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 3 and learned counsel for the State are present. 2. Learned counsel for the Opposite Party No. 3 has stated that, in terms of the of the directions given by the learned Writ Court as well as the order passed in the L.P.A. case, the case of the petitioner has been duly considered. It is next submitted with reference to paragraphs 4,5 and 6 of the show- cause filed, that the reason for which the petitioner was not Patna High Court MJC No.2389 of 2016(5) dt.20-08-2026 2/2 selected has already been assigned. It is further submitted that the case of the petitioner has been duly considered by the concerned authorities. 3. Learned counsel has specifically mentioned that, as per the records, against the remaining 2,413 posts out of the total 34,540 posts of the Assistant Primary Teacher, recommendation in a phased manner have been sent by the Bihar State Selection Commission. It is submitted that the petitioner obtained only 61.46% and falls in Session 85-87, whereas the last candidate recommended in the General Category had obtained a higher percentage of 70.13% and was falling in the training session of 85-87. Hence, no recommendation in favour of the petitioner could be made. 4. Learned counsel further submits that the case of the petitioner has already been considered and his grievance is redressed. 5. Thus, show cause on behalf of Opposite Party No. 3 is accepted and present contempt application stands disposed of. Prachi/- (Raj Kumar, J) U T