Lalan Singh Yadav @ Lallan Singh @ Lallan Singh Yadav v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9554 of 2019 ====================================================== Lalan Singh Yadav @ Lallan Singh @ Lallan Singh Yadav Son of Sri Sita Ram Singh Yadav Resident of Village-Mahuar, P.O.-Sauka, P.S.-Ramgarh, District-Kaimur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Divisional Railway Manager (Personnel), E.C. Railway, Samastipur 2.

The Divisional Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Samastipur 3.

The Assistant Personnel Officer, East Central Railway, Samastipur 4.

The Assistant Personnel Officer-, East Central Railway, Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Kamlesh Kumar Pathak, Advocate For the Respondent 1 to 4 :

Mr. Nishi Nath Ojha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 26-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent Union of India. After having heard the learned counsel for the parties, we had called upon the production of the original application vide order dated 29th of April, 2019 extracted hereinunder:

"It is contended that the Tribunal has recorded both facts in paragraph 5, namely, that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9554 of 2019 dt.26-06-2019 2/3 applicant had applied, admittedly, for the post of a Forward Striker/Half (Midfielder) whereas in the same paragraph later on the narration of facts recited are that the applicant had applied for Forward Striker, but during the trial his position was found as Half (Midfielder). The correct position of recital in the application, therefore, has to be looked into before accepting or otherwise the said fact having been stated in the Tribunal's order.

Learned counsel for the Railways may, therefore, produce the original application form of the applicant.

Let the matter come up on 24th June, 2019 for the production of the aforesaid records." The original application has been produced today and the learned counsel for the petitioner has also perused the same. The application clearly indicates a correction indicated by the applicant himself.

In such circumstances, the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal cannot be faulted with as the records categorically support the finding recorded by the Tribunal which has been produced before us, a copy whereof has been appended to this application. A counter affidavit has also been filed on behalf of the respondents supporting the same.

Accordingly, we find no merit in the petition which

Patna High Court CWJC No.9554 of 2019 dt.26-06-2019 3/3 is hereby rejected.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) Saif/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 27.06.2019 Transmission Date N.A.