Sidheshwar Yadav, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3419 of 2020 ====================================================== Sidheshwar Yadav, Son of Munarik Yadav, Resident of Village-Gajraj Bigha (Pipardih), P.S. Salaiya, District Aurangabad. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Commissioner Magadh Division, Gaya.

4.

The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.

5.

The Additional Collector (Revenue), Aurangabad. 6.

The Circle Officer, Obra, Aurangabad.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Mishra For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Archana Prasad, AC to SC19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 12-07-2021 Heard Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mrs. Archana Prasad, learned AC to SC - 19 for the State through video conferencing.

The present writ application has been filed for a direction to respondent -District Magistrate, Aurangabad to grant extension of service to the petitioner, who retired as Halka Karamchari (Revenue Karamchari) from the Circle Office, Obra, District - Aurangabad on 31.1.2019.

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset seeks permission to withdraw this application with liberty to pursue his application for appointment after retirement on contract basis.

Learned counsel for the State referring to Annexure - 1 to the petition, which is the minutes of the proceeding of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.3419 of 2020(2) dt.12-07-2021 2/2 Selection Committee for appointment on contract basis headed by District Magistrate, Aurangabad submits that from perusal of Clause -X of the minutes of the proceeding of the Committee, it would be evident that the application seeking extension of service submitted by the petitioner has already been rejected. Learned counsel next submits that however it appears from the minutes of the proceedings that subsequently the petitioner has submitted another application for re-appointment on contract basis.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the prayer of the petitioner to withdraw this application, this writ application is permitted to be withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to pursue his application for appointment on contract basis submitted before the competent authority. Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/- U