Ram Kishun Yadav @ Ram Kishun Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8779 of 2019 ====================================================== Ram Kishun Yadav @ Ram Kishun Rai Son of Late Jiut Yadav, resident of village- Simaria Khurd, Khairwar, Police Station - Manjhi, District - Saran at Chapra.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Home (Police), Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The District Magistrate , Saran at Chapra.

3.

The Superintendent of Police, Saran, at Chapra. 4.

The Circle Officer Manjhi, District - Saran at Chapra. 5.

The Officer - in - Charge, Manjhi Police Station, District - Saran at Chapra. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Narendra Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad ( SC-8 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 11-09-2023 Heard the parties.

2. This application has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ order or direction to the respondents to take a final decision with regard to application filed by petitioner in pursuant to a government policy decision for voluntary retirement from the post of Chowkidar of Circle No. 6 Beat No. 5 of Manhi Police Station seeking appointment to his nominee Shiv Kumar Yadav the son of the petitioner on the Post of Chowkidar.

3. A counter-affidavit on behalf of the respondent no. 2 was filed on 26.09.2019 incorporating Memo No. 686 dated

Patna High Court CWJC No. 8779 of 2019(2) dt.11-09-2023 2/2 19.07.2016 by which the claim of the petitioner was rejected by the concerned District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra and the same was communicated to him.

4. In the writ petition so filed, the letter was neither brought on record nor challenged and simple prayer was made to take a decision for his appointment on the post of 'chowkidar'.

5. A copy of the counter affidavit has been filed and was served upon the learned Counsel for the petitioner on 23.10.2019, no rejoinder to the same is on record even after lapse of four years. This Court is satisfied that in an order of 2016, having not been challenged, (the writ petition having been filed in 2019), no relief can be extended.

6. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. The petitioner has all the liberty to agitate before the appropriate authority, if he so wants.

(Rajiv Roy, J) kiran/- U