Patna High CourtCWJC/17383/2008dismissed

Anwar Alam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-09-24Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17383 of 2008 ====================================================== Anwar Alam, son of Md. Illyas, resident of village - Paraiya, P.S. - Paraiya, District Gaya .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. District Magistrate , Gaya

3. the Child Development Project Officer, Paraiya, district - Gaya (C.D.P.O.)

4. The Deputy Collector Nazarat, Gaya Collectoriate at and P.O. - District - Gaya .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Saxena Mr. Pravin Kumar Verma Mr. Vijay Bharti For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 24-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GA No. 13.

The petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for directing the Respondent No. 3 to appoint him as Class -IV employee. It has been claimed that after the establishment of the Office of Child Development Project Officer, Praiya, in the District of Gaya, the petitioner is working and he has also filed application for regularization/ application for appointment on permanent basis.

In this case a counter affidavit has been filed wherein

Patna High Court CWJC No.17383 of 2008 (3) dt.24-09-2015 2/2 it has been indicated that as and when required, work has been taken from the petitioner not on regular basis. Learned counsel for the State while referring to the statement made in paragraph no. 6 of the counter affidavit submits that in view of receipt shown by the petitioner it is evident that he has worked from 23.12.2000 to 26.12.2000, then from 15.2.2001 to 18.2.2001, on 20.2.2001 and on 20.3.2001. In view of submission made by learned counsel for the State as well as in view of counter affidavit, the Court is of the opinion that no direction can be issued for making permanent appointment.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U