IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8092 of 2026 ====================================================== Lay Prakash Sharma S/o Ransigasan Sharma @ Ramsigaram Sharma, Resident of Village - Tetardih Road, Tetar Dih, P.O. - Hasan Bazar, P.S. - Piro, District- Bhojpur. ... ... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Union of India Through the Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi. 2. Director General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, New Delhi. 3. Inspector General of Police, Central Reserve Police Force, Bihar Sector, Patna. 4. Deputy Inspector General, Central Reserve Police Force, Group Centre, Muzaffarpur. 5. Dr. Srot Gupta, M.C. Medical Member- TWC, Recruitment Board, C.T., (Technical/ Tradesman), at G.C. (CRPF), Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shambhu Sharan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Radhika Raman, Sr. Panel Advocate : Mr. Ravindra Kumar Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RITESH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 18-06-2026 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India. 2. The present writ petition has been filed for the following reliefs:- “(i) For direction/order to consider the candidature of petitioner in the appointment of on the post of constable Barbar (Technical/Tradesman) in pursuance of advertisement dated 13th November 2012, who appeared in the Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026 2/9 physical test and the written test held on 24th January 2013 and was declared successful and during test of medical board the petitioner was found unfit but the re-medical test record was destroyed malafidely by the authority concern only on defeat the candidature of the petitioner and at the time of consideration finally in L.P.A. No. 1285/2025 dated 21.12.2016. The petitioner's claim to produce the medical test record before this Hon'ble Court. The Hon'ble High Court suggested that the petitioner have to obtain information under RTI about the record of the re-medical test of the petitioner. (ii) For direction/order to the respondent authorities to provide the petitioner "the required record to merit list, final merit list re-medical and test subsisting before the authority concern for which the authority concern has declined to provide information like this " vkids }kjk izkIr vkosnu i= fnukad 30-04-2018 ds rgr vkius dsfjiqcy ds foKkiu la0&vk0nks0&21@2022 & lh,l&LFkk&lkr ds rgr ds flikgh@ckjcj in ds fyf[kr ijh{kk esa p;u ds mijkar fu;qfDr fd;s x;s vH;kFkhZ eukst dqekj (jkSy ua0&ch&3119)] vf[kys”k dqekj Bkdqj (jkSy ua0&ch&3118)] fofiu dqekj jk; (jkSy ua0&,&3106)] :is”k dqekj frokjh (jkSy Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026 3/9 ua0&,&3102)] fuys”k dqekj (jkSy ua0&ch&3124) ,oa y; izdk”k “kekZ (jkSy ua0&,&3110) ds fyf[kr ijh{kk dk mRrj iqfLrdk dh vfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr miyC/k djkus gsrq lwpuk dk vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e&2005 ds rgr vuqjks/k fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa ;g voxr djk;k tkrk gS fd bl dk;kZy; esa miyC/k HkrhZ ls lacaf/kr fjdkWMZ o’kZ 2014 rd dk fofMax vkmV gks pqdk gSA vr% vkids }kjk ekaxh xbZ tkudkjh miyC/k ugha djk;k tk ldrk gSA” 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 12656 of 2013, with a prayer for his appointment on the post of Constable (Technical/Tradesman), pursuant to an advertisement dated 13.11.2012. The petitioner appeared in the physical test and the written test held on 24.01.2013 and was declared successful. During test of medical board, the petitioner was found unfit. After rejection by the medical board, the petitioner got himself examined by a Doctor at Sadar Hospital, Ara on 06.02.2013, wherein the doctor found him to be medically fit. On that strength, the petitioner filed an appeal before the D.I.G., Muzaffarpur, who vide letter No. R.II-8/2013 -Estt.6 (RM) dated 23.02.2013 directed the petitioner to appear before the Review Medical Board on 05.03.2013. The petitioner was re-examined by the team of doctors and they did not find Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026 4/9 any wrong with the petitioner but, he was not declared successful on account of his position in the merit list. The petitioner challenged the conduct of the respondent authorities claiming that he had done fairly well in the written examination and the action of the respondent authorities in rejecting the claim of the petitioner was completely illegal and not sustainable in law. In the said case, counter affidavit was filed by the Union of India, whereby the merit list was brought on record. The petitioner was found to have obtained 37 marks and after considering the submissions of the petitioner, the writ petition was disposed of with an observation that if any person does not join, certainly the petitioner will have liberty to make an application for consideration of his case against the vacant post, if any, and if such an application is filed by the petitioner, respondent authorities were directed to consider his case in accordance with law. Not satisfied with order dated 21.01.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 12656 of 2013, the petitioner preferred Letters Patent Appeal bearing LPA No. 1285 of 2015 before this Hon’ble Court. The said appeal was heard by a Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide its order dated 21.12.2016 dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner by observing that it is a categorical stand of the Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026 5/9 respondents that the appellant did not file any application for being considered against a non-joining post, at any time, before the respondents, which fact has not been denied by the appellant. However, despite the same, an order was passed by the concerned authority in the matter stating that the appellant could not be appointed even with regard to the said direction. Accordingly, the appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court. 4. The petitioner subsequently filed application under the Right to Information Act and on his application, an order was passed by the Central Information Commission, whereby it was decided that on the basis of the statement made by the respondents that the recruitment related records up to the year 2014 have been wedded out, no direction for furnishing information can be passed in absence of the records. Even thereafter, the petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act on 18.07.2020 asking for some more documents and has now filed the present writ petition, with a prayer to consider the candidature of the petitioner for appointment as constable (Technical/Tradesman), pursuant to advertisement dated 13.11.2012, along with some consequential reliefs. Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026 6/9 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that it is general rule that the documents must be saved in the department concerned up to ten years, when any legal struggle is pending/going on in respect of the document concerned. He submits that in the present case, the petitioner approached before this Hon’ble Court against the advertisement No. 21 of 2012, then it was incumbent upon the respondent authorities to keep the record related to the recruitment process intact, however malafidely and erroneously for otherwise purpose, the same has been weeded out/destroyed by the department intentionally. He further submits that the petitioner is a bona fide candidate and he deserves his selection, pursuant to the advertisement No. 21 of 2012. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Union of India submits that the petitioner had earlier filed the writ petition, however the same was disposed of with certain directions and the petitioner, not being satisfied with the order passed by the Hon’ble Single Judge of this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 12656 of 2013, preferred an appeal bearing LPA No. 1285 of 2015. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2016 and even then, the petitioner kept on Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026 7/9 filing application under the Right to Information Act for providing documents, which has already been weeded out/destroyed in 2014 itself. He further submits that the selection process in relation to advertisement No. 21 of 2012 has already culminated and persons recommended therein have also joined. Subsequent thereto, fresh advertisement was also issued and the same has also culminated in appointment of the candidates and therefore, the present writ petition does not deserve any merit. 7. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and after going through the records, it appears that the petitioner had earlier filed a writ petition bearing C.W.J.C. No. 12656 of 2013. The same was disposed of by a learned Co-ordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.01.2015 with certain observations. Being aggrieved with the same, the petitioner preferred LPA No. 1285 of 2015. The Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the petitioner was heard on merits and the Hon’ble Division Bench vide its order dated 21.12.2016, after considering the categorical stand of the respondent-Union of India that the petitioner herein did not file any application for being considered against a non-joining post at any time, before Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026 8/9 the respondents and which has not been denied by the petitioner herein. However, despite the same an order was passed by the concerned respondents in the matter stating that the appellant could not be appointed even with regard to the said direction. It appears that the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court set at rest the matter related to the appointment of the petitioner vide order dated 21.12.2016 passed in LPA No. 1285 of 2015, however the petitioner kept on filing one petition or the other before the concerned authorities under the Right to Information Act. The Central Information Commission vide its order dated 13.05.2020 also disposed of the petition of the petitioner by holding that the records have been weeded out/destroyed and therefore, it is not possible to provide any information to the petitioner. Even then, the petitioner kept on filing petition under the Right to Information Act for obtaining certain documents with regard to advertisement No. 21 of 2012, for making out a case for his appointment, although the process for appointment has already closed long ago. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ petition is fit to be dismissed on the ground that the matter with regard to the petitioner has been set at rest by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 1285 of 2015, upon Patna High Court CWJC No.8092 of 2026 dt.18-06-2026 9/9 considering the case of the petitioner on merit and therefore now, by again filing the present petition, the petitioner cannot be permitted to re-open the matter, which has already been settled by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 21.12.2016 passed in LPA No. 1285 of 2015. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. AjayMishra/- (Ritesh Kumar, J) AFR/NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.06.2026 Transmission Date NA