Ranjan Kumar Tanti And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 21564 of 2014 ======================================================

1. Ranjan Kumar Tanti, son of Chulho Tanti

2. Ratan Kumar Pan, son of Kedar Tanti

3. Rajesh Kumar Tanti, son of Shiv Shankar Tanti All residents of village - Kalyanpur, Ward No. 21, Jamui, P.S. and Distt. - Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through District Magistrate, Jamui

2. Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger

5. District Magistrate, Jamui

6. Sub Divisional Officer Cum Sub Divisional Magistrate, Jamui

7. District Program officer (Establishment ), Jamui

8. Nazarat Deputy Collector, Jamui ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr Satya Deo Kumar, SC V ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 25-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent-State.

2 Claim of the petitioners for regularization has been rejected by the respondent-authorities. The specific stand is that the petitioners' work was found beyond the zone of consideration in view of the limited available vacancies as per duly approved roster.

3 Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted, with reference to the rejoinder, that it is specifically asserted by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.21564 of 2014 dt.25-02-2019 2/2 petitioners that ignoring the claim of the petitioners, others, who were ineligible, have been accommodated.

4 Specific stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit giving details of petitioners' position in the panel prepared is disputed by making vague assertion. The stand of the respondents, therefore, appears to be correct as none, below the petitioners, has been considered for regularization on the panel prepared. The petitioners cannot have any grievance of his claim being ignored in the process of regularization. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in future panel, petitioners should be allowed to participate as per their merit.

6 No separate direction is required as this order will not preclude petitioners' consideration in any subsequent process of regularization as per the extant provisions.

7 The writ petition is devoid of merit and the same is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 26.02.2019 Transmission Date NA