Rajeev Ranjan Verma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

Patna High Court MJC No.2097 of 2016 (7) dt.28-07-2017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2097 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11850 of 2015 ======================================================

1. Rajeev Ranjan Verma Son of Ramawtar Prasad resident of village - Mudla Bigha, P.O. - Satnag, P.S. - Chandi, District - Nalanda. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Public Health & Engineering Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. Pankaj Kumar Son of not known to the pettitioner The Principal Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Laxmi Narayan Das Son of not Known to the petitioner The Engineer-inChief-Cum-Additional Secretary-cum-Special Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirbhikar, Advocate Mr. Samrendra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Commission : Mr. Lalit Kishroe, PAAG Mr. Satyabir Bharti, Advocate Ms. Aparna Arun, Advocate Mr. Alok Chandra, Advocate Mr. Ravindra Kumar, Advocate ======================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 28-07-2017 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

The instant contempt petition has been filed against the Opposite parties for non-compliance of order, dated 7.12.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No.11850 of 2015, whereby this Court has quashed the order, dated 20.7.2015 ousting the writ petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 from service consequent to re-evaluation. Being aggrieved, the State Selection Commission preferred L.P.A. No.844 of 2016, whereby the Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 6.12.2016 too set aside the order of the State

Patna High Court MJC No.2097 of 2016 (7) dt.28-07-2017 Government terminating the services of the writ petitioners with liberty to the Commission and/or the State Government to revise its result and the State Government to pass an order keeping in view the revised result in accordance with law after hearing the parties.

Both learned counsel for the petitioner and the State submit that in view of the recommendation made by the Commission vide its memo No.1617, dated 22.7.2017, the State Government has reinstated the services of the writ petitioner and thus the order passed by this Court has been complied with.

In view of the aforesaid submissions, this contempt application does not survive and as such it is dropped. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J) KHAN/- U