Manoj Kumar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4848 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Manoj Kumar Paswan Son Of Ramsaroop Paswan Resident Of MohallaChuabag, Police Station- Kasim Bazar, District- Munger .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary Public Health Engineering Department, Government Of Bihar, Nirman Bhawan Campus, Bailey Road, Patna

2. The Engineer-In-Chief Cum Special Secretary, Public Health Engineering Department, Nirman Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna

3. The Special Work Officer, P.H.E. Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Zonal Chief Engineer, Public Health Engineering Department, Bhagalpur

5. The Superintending Engineer, Public Health Engineering Circle, Munger

6. The Executive Engineer, Public Health Engineering Division, Munger .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Siya Ram Shahi Mr. Ram Sevak Choudhary For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC-17 Arvind Kumar-2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-04-2015 A bald assertion has been made that there are posts which are still vacant under the respondents in PHED at Munger. One of the reasons why the claim of the petitioner could not be considered in terms of Annexure- 10 was non- availability of post. If there are vacancies now and also a vacancy for scheduled caste candidate, which the petitioner is, the respondents will examine the claim afresh, But this order is being passed only on the assertion of the petitioner about available vacancy without there being any impendent material to certify that position. The respondents will be well advised to communicate to the petitioner the position in this

Patna High Court CWJC No.4848 of 2014 dt.01-04-2015 2/2 regard within a period of three months from the date of filing of an application with a copy of this order. Otherwise, the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner in terms of Annexure- 10 does not seem to be either irrational or arbitrary. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U