Patna High CourtCWJC/10545/2014dismissed

Mukul Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-12-13Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10545 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Mukul Kumar Son of Sri Shankar Ram Resident of Village Bakharia, Police Station- Manjhaulia, District- West Champaran. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.

3. The Additional District Collector, East Champaran, Motihari.

4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, East Champaran, Motihari.

5. The Deputy Collector, District Establishment, East Champaran, Motihari.

6. The Senior Deputy Collector, District Law Section, East Champaran, Motihari. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rupak Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.K.Prasad, GP 14 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 13-12-2016 It is not that the case of the petitioner for appointment as a Driver was not considered by the district authorities of Motihari against the 19 vacancies, which were duly advertised, which was advertisement no.22/1999. The case of the petitioner was considered. It is pointed out by the State that the requirement as per the advertisement has been annexed by the petitioner himself as Annexure- 5. The position which emerges now is that actually petitioner did not have a valid driving licence having experience of five years with him. That was the reason that his name for such appointment was rejected, therefore, the reasons given in the order of rejection has to be read in consonance with the validity of period of

Patna High Court CWJC No.10545 of 2014 dt.13-12-2016 2/2 the licence.

Even if the reason that the petitioner had obtained the licence after the date of application is treated to be an error of record, the experience of the petitioner based on such a licence does not add up to five years, therefore, he was in any way not eligible for consideration. Therefore, no interference is required to be made with Annexure- 17, which has been annexed with I.A.No.7198 of 2014. Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 13.12.2016 Transmission Date NA