Patna High CourtCWJC/15478/2008dismissed

Bhola Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-28Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15478 of 2008 ====================================================== Bhola Rai, S/o Sri Maheshwar Rai, Resident of Village - Bishwanathpur, P.O. and P.S. - Dumra, District - Sitamarhi.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary having his office in Old Secretariat, P.S. - Sachivalaya, Patna.

2. The Finance Commissioner, Finance Department having his office in Old Secretariat, P.S. - Sachivalaya, Patna.

3. The Collector, Sitamarhi.

4. The Deputy Collector, Zila Nazarat, Sitamarhi.

5. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Sitamarhi. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar For the Respondent/s : AC to SC - 15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 3.

28-02-2017 Heard Sri Rupak Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Standing Counsel - 15. The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider his case for appointment on the post of Driver or any 4th grade post, pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2004 dated 23rd November, 2004 (Annexure - 9 to the writ petition).

However, at the time of argument, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that petitioner was working since 1996, even then, he has not been appointed. He further submits

Patna High Court CWJC No.15478 of 2008 (3) dt.28-02-2017 2/2 that in the panel, which was prepared in the year 2003, his name was appearing, but his case has been ignored. Fact remains that in the writ petition, relief has been sought for directing the respondents to issue appointment letter, pursuant to advertisement, which was published in the year 2004. Moreover, it is not a case of petitioner that pursuant to Adv. No. 01 of 2004, the name of petitioner was included in the panel and he was denied appointment.

Considering the pleading, I do not find any ground to pass any positive order.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U