Shambhu Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15322 of 2006 =========================================================== Shambhu Kumar, son of Sri Tribhuwan Prasad Sah, resident of village-Mirchaibari Chowk, P.S.-Katihar, District- Katihar.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The District Magistrate, Katihar.

3.

The District Establishment Deputy Collector, Katihar. 4.

The District Nazarat Deputy Collector, Katihar .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bhola Prasad, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC to G.P.12. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 10-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State and perused the records of this case.

The petitioner seeks direction to the respondent District Magistrate, Katihar to appoint him on the post of class IV in one of the different offices under Katihar district on the basis of the panel prepared pursuant to the advertisement published from the level of the Collectoriate, Katihar. He has claimed that the persons below him in the panel have been appointed but the petitioner has been excluded. A counter affidavit and three supplementary counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of the State coming out with the clear case that nobody below the petitioner has been appointed. The petitioner has raised an issue that one Dhananjay Rai has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.15322 of 2006 dt.10-12-2015 2/2 appointed in general category who happens to be below him, however, a categorical statement has been made in the counter affidavit that the said Dhananjay Rai has been appointed in the category reserved for Extremely Backward Castes. The petitioner has not been able to controvert the aforesaid statement, however, at the same time, learned counsel for the State has assured that whenever the term of the petitioner would come, he would be considered for the appointment in accordance with law.

Accordingly, this writ application stands disposed of. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) V.K. Pandey/- U