Patna High CourtCWJC/16627/2015dismissed

Sanjeet Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-08-16Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16627 of 2015 ===========================================================

1. Sanjeet Ram son of Sri Chalittar Ram R/o Village- Kadarchak P.S. Khanpur District Samastipur.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Rural Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur District - Samastipur.

5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Samastipur District Samastipur.

6. The Incharge Deputy Collector District Public Grievances Cell, Samastipur, District Samastipur.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to GA 7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 16-08-2016 Annexure-8 is the decision of the D.D.C., Samastipur. The order indicates that in terms of the advertisement contained in Annexure- 1 to fill up certain posts on contract, a panel was prepared in the month of February 2014. Since the life of the panel was for a period of one year, therefore, in terms of the communication of the Rural Development Department, appointment from the said panel has been stopped. The petitioner, therefore, wants quashing of Annexure8. Merely because the petitioner found his name in the panel prepared it does not give him a right for appointment when the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16627 of 2015 dt.16-08-2016 2/2 guidelines contained in Annexure- A to the counter affidavit was the basis for initiation of the process for preparation of the panel and the said guidelines categorically states that the validity of the panel will be for one year.

If the D.D.C. has followed the guidelines and the requirement of the law, no interference is warranted with Annexure8. Writ application, therefore, has no merit. It is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 16.8.2016 Transmission Date