Patna High CourtCWJC/5811/2015dismissed

Jitendra Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-14Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5811 of 2015 =========================================================== Jitendra Ram son of Sri Laxman Ram resident of village- Agahara, P.S.- Amrath, District- Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary Finance Department, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Divisional Commissioner Munger Division, Munger.

5. The Chairman, District Selection Committee cum District Magistrate, Jamui.

6. The Deputy Development Commisssioner, Jamui.

7. The In-charge Officer, Nazarat, Jamui.

8. The Senior Deputy Collector (Est), Jamui.

9. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamui.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s :

Mr. SC16- Abbas Haidar =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-09-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Lack of knowledge, procedure and rules cannot form the basis for giving a direction in favour of the petitioner for his appointment on class-iv post and his claim has been considered and rejected in view of the stand taken in paragraph 12 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of Respondent-State. The statement of the counsel that at no point of time he was told about the non-fulfillment of the requirement or that the certificate of disability, which has been submitted was not accepted, therefore, he cannot be held responsible of the omission. The

Patna High Court CWJC No.5811 of 2015 dt.14-09-2016 2/2 omission is on the part of the State-respondents. Any person claiming benefit of reservation under whatever category, it may be, must fulfill all the requirements on his own by verifying what is required to be done in this regard. The onus cannot be shifted on to the State-respondents only with the object of providing employment to such claimants on mere asking. Writ application, therefore, has no merit, it is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) SKM/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE Uploading Date 16.09.2016 Transmission Date