Patna High CourtCWJC/10375/2015disposed

Lalit Kumar Mishra v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-07-29Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10375 of 2015 ====================================================== Lalit Kumar Mishra, son of late Kali Mishra, resident of MohallaDhwajagali Sultanganj, P.S.- Sultanganj, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. District Magistrate, Begusarai.

3. Zila Niyojan Padadhikari, Begusarai.

4. Deputy Collector (Establishment), Begusarai, District- Begusarai.

5. The Union of India.

6. Postal Superintendent, Bhagalpur, District- Bhagalpur.

7. Postal Superintendent, Begusarai, District- Begusarai

8. Post Mater, Sultanganj Post Office, District- Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pratap Sharma, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGMENT 29-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner has a grievance as with regard to his non-empanelment pursuant to an advertisement issued by the Collector of Begusarai District for filling up Class-IV post, this Court cannot straightway direct for empanelment of the petitioner because the alleged panel, notified on 27.03.2015, has not been brought on record to show as to how many candidates were empanelled and whether any person, having lower in merit than the petitioner, was also empanelled.

3. None-the-less, the petitioner claims that he had filed his application in terms of the advertisement within prescribed period of time which was sent by speed post, it would direct the

Patna High Court CWJC No.10375 of 2015 (2) dt.29-07-2015 2/2 office of the Collector, Begusarai District to examine as to whether the application of the petitioner was received in the office and if it was so, whether the petitioner's case was also considered for empanelment and, in case, it was considered, the reason for his non-empanelment should be communicated to him.

4. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this writ application is disposed of.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Sujit/- U