Rajesh Kumar Singh v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4845 of 2023 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Singh Son of Late Brahamdev Prasad Resident of VillageTufanganj, Post-Sohsarai, P.S.-Rahui, District-Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The Union of India through its General Manager, East Central Railway, Hajipur.

2.

The General Manager, East Central Railway, at Hajipur, P.S.-Hajipur, DisttVaishali. 3.

The Senior Divisional Commercial Manager, East Central Railway, Danapur Division at-Danapur, Patna.

4.

The Divisional Railway Manager Danapur at Danapur, Patna. 5.

Niraj Kumar S/o Manoj Prasad @ Mano Garai, R/o-Vill-Bhadwa, P.S.- Rahui, District-Nalanda.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rudal Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Additional Solicitor General ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-05-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. This writ application has been filed challenging the advertisement published in Hindi Daily Newspaper "Hindustan" dated 20th April, 2019 by East Central Railway for appointment of Halt Contractors in different Rail sections in Bihar.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that this petitioner was earlier appointed as Halt Contractor. In this regard, reliance has been placed on Annexure '3' to the writ application which is a Letter dated 08.08.2006 showing that the petitioner has been appointed as Halt Contractor on temporary basis till execution of agreement.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to produce any copy of agreement showing that ultimately pursuant to Annexure '3' a

Patna High Court CWJC No.4845 of 2023 dt.04-05-2023 2/2 contract was executed. In the writ application, there is no pleading that the appointment of the petitioner was permanent in nature and or that it was for a particular fixed period.

5. It is stated in the writ application that as per agreement the dispute between Railway Authority and the petitioner, if so arises, the same has to be resolved or referred to the Arbitrator. In absence of any copy of the agreement, this Court is unable to appreciate the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner.

6. This writ application, as framed, cannot be entertained. In case, the petitioner has any other remedy, he is at liberty to file the same.

7. This writ application stands disposed of.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 06.05.2023 Transmission Date