Baidhyanath Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5574 of 2025 ====================================================== Baidhyanath Prasad Son of Late Govind Mahamarik, Resident of Village and Post- Barkundi, Police Station - Saraiyahat, District- Dumka. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Director in Chief (Mental Diseases, Disaster Management, Food and Drugs Control), Health department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director in Chief (Administration), Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Regional Additional Director, Health Service, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.

4.

The Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Banka. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kaushal Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Madhurjeet Singh G.P. (20) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL ORAL ORDER 08-04-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as respondent-State.

2. It is submitted by the counsel for the petitioner that on the basis of recommendation made by the DPC, the petitioner has been promoted to the post of Assistant Administrative Officer Vide Annexure-P/3 dated 11.12.2023. At present he is working at the Community Health Center, Chandan. According to the counsel, the promotional post i.e. Assistant Administrative Officer (Level-7) is required to be posted only head quarter. Instead of that, he has been given posting to the Community Health Center, Chandan. He further

Patna High Court CWJC No.5574 of 2025(2) dt.08-04-2025 2/2 submits that he already made a representation before the Respondent No. 4 i.e. Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Banka for his transfer at Banka through Annexure-P/8 series but no decision has been taken by the Respondent no. 4 till today. It is prayed by the counsel that this petition may be disposed of directing the Respondent no. 4 to consider and decide the same and passed a reasoned order within specific period fixed by this Court.

3. The above prayer made by the counsel does not oppose by the respondents-State counsel.

4. Considering the submission made by both the counsels the petition is disposed of. Respondent No. 04 is directed to decide and consider the pending representation of the petitioner i.e. Annexure- 8 series as early as possible probably within 60 days from today in accordance with relevant rules and law and pass a reasoned order.

5.Accordingly, the petition is disposed of.

(Arvind Singh Chandel , J) krishnakant/- U