Kusheshwar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3042 of 2020 ====================================================== Kusheshwar Yadav Son of Ram Nandan Yadav, Resident of villageKhairamath (Kh) Ward No. 12, Belhi, P.S. Jainagar, District- Madhubani. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary Panchayati Raj Department Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate-Cum-Charimarn Distrcit Level Selection Committee for Appointment of Technical Assistants and Accountants - Cum- I.T. Assistants Madhubani Collectorate Madhubani.

4.

The District- Level Selection committee for appointment of Technical Assistants Cum- I.T. Assistants Madhubani through its secretary cumDistrict Panchayat Raj Officer. 5.

The Deputy Development Commissioner cum- Vice Chairman DistrictLevel Selection Committee Madhubani. 6.

The District Panchayat Raj Officer Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Ms. Archana Meenakshee (GP6) :

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC To GP6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE DR. ANSHUMAN ORAL ORDER 02-12-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the office order issued vide Memo No. 17 dated 06.01.2020 on the basis of which final merit list dated 0503.2019 has been made for contractual appointment.

3. Counsel for the State submits that the present case has become infructuous, due to the reason that the appointment letter which is Annexure-8, it is crystal clear that the said

Patna High Court CWJC No.3042 of 2020(3) dt.02-12-2023 2/2 appointment was valid upto to 31.03.2020 only and the second aspect is that petitioner has also not made party to the concerned persons who are benefited from the said appointment in this case as respondent.

4. In this background that the said appointment was valid upto 2020 only and it is 2023. As such, this case has become infructuous.

5. In this view of the matter, the present writ application is hereby dismissed as having become infructuous. (Dr. Anshuman, J.) Prakashmani/- U