Anil Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1472 of 2017 ======================================================
1. Anil Kumar, Son of Raghunath Mahto, Resident of Village- Tharhesari, P.O. and P.S. Rahika, District- Madhubani.
2. Md. Faiyaz, Son of Md. Samim, Resident of Village- Yamsam, P.S. Pandaul, District- Madhubani.
3. Umesh Kumar Thakur, Son of Sri Ugan Thakur, resident of VillageShambhuar, P.S. Madhubani (Town), District- Madhubani.
4. Shailesh Kumar, Son of Chandra Kumar Mishra, Resident of Village Balirajpur, P.S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani.
5. Ravi Kumar, Son of late Arun Prasad, resident of Mohalla- Bata Chowk, Ward No. 17, Suraganj, P.S.- Madhubani (Town) District- Madhubani.
6. Krishan Kumar Rai, Son of Mohan Rai, Resident of Village- Uzan, Madhopur, Ward No. 5, P.S. Shakipur, District- Darbhanga. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Home Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Finance Secretary Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Registrar General, Hon'ble High Court, Patna.
4. The Registrar Vigilance, Hon'ble High Court, Patna.
5. The Appointment Committee of Civil Court Madhubani through the District Sessions Judge Madhubani.
6. The Registrar Civil Court, Civil Court Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vinod Kumar, Adv. Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.Nashrul Hoda Khan-SC1 Mr. Md. Irshad, A.C. to S.C.1 Mr. Bindhyachal Singh, Adv.
Ms. Smriti Singh, Adv.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 12-01-2018 Heard Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The petitioners are aggrieved by the selection process of appointment of Class IV employees in the Civil Court of Madhubani. It is alleged that unsuited candidates not fulfilling
Patna High Court CWJC No.1472 of 2017 (2) dt.12-01-2018 2/2 qualifications have been appointed while the petitioners have been ignored. An exhaustive counter affidavit is on record denying the allegations and even though Mr. Sinha endeavours to argue that people with forge certificate have obtained appointment but in absence of specific instance on records no direction can be issued. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the stand of the respondents as present in the counter affidavit with nothing particular which would require an examination of their selection process, I am not persuaded to interfere with the same. The writ petition is disposed of (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- U