Surya Prakash v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.548 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21718 of 2012 =========================================================== Surya Prakash, S/o Sri Ashok Kumar Singh, R/o Showan, P.S.- Krishna Brahmb, Distt- Buxar.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Secretary Personal Administrative Department, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
3. Chairman, Bihar Vidhan Parishad, Govt. of Bihar at Patna.
4. Secretary, Bihar Vidhan Parishad, Secretariate, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : None For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, G.A.-1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 16-05-2017 Seeking exception to an order dated 13.02.2014 passed by the learned Writ Court in CWJC No.21718 of 2012, this appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. An advertisement was issued in the year 1999 for appointment to Security Guard in Bihar Vidhan Parishad. Petitioner
Patna High Court LPA No.548 of 2016 dt.16-05-2017 2/3 applied for the same and was not appointed. After waiting for seven years, in the year 2007 it is alleged that the petitioner came to know that certain persons have been appointed and, therefore, he filed an application for getting certain informations under the Right to Information Act. It is said that right from the year 2007 up to 2012, the matter was pending before the various authorities and finally in the year 2012, he got the informations under the Right to Information Act and filed the writ petition in the year 2012 challenging the appointment held in the year 1999.
The learned Writ Court taking note of the fact that the appointment was made in the year 1999 and merely because the petitioner was prosecuting the matter under the Right to Information Act, the cause of action for challenging the appointment does not survive dismissed the writ petition. Apart from the fact that we do not find any illegality in the order passed by the learned Writ Court, on going through the original record of the writ petition, we further find that neither the persons, who are said to have been illegally appointed, were arrayed as respondents, nor their appointment was challenged in the writ petition and without the same being done, the writ petition itself was not maintainable.
Accordingly, on this count, the writ petition filed by the petitioner was not maintainable and taking note of the totality of the circumstances, we are not inclined to interfere into the matter.
Patna High Court LPA No.548 of 2016 dt.16-05-2017 3/3 appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) Sunil/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 18.05.2017 Transmission Date