Shankar Prasad Paswan And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7670 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Shankar Prasad Paswan son of late Mathura Paswan resident of village Haflaganj, P.S. Mufassil Katihar, District - Katihar

2. Birendra Kumar Paswan son of Radhay Shyam Paswan resident of village Azampur Gola, P.S. Manihari, District - Katihar

3. Bipin Tanti son of Basant Tanti resident of village Tanti Tola, P.S. Mahihari, District - Katihar .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Katihar

3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Katihar

4. The Sub - Divisional Officer, Katihar

5. The Deputy Collector ( District Establishment ), Katihar .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mukesh Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manikant Mishra =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Petitioners want a direction upon the respondentauthorities, especially the District Magistrate, Katihar to act upon the advertisement issued in terms of Annexure-6, dated 11.02.2013. The advertisement was for appointment on class-iv posts under the Collectorate, for which the applications were also invited. Counter affidavit on behalf of the District Administration has been filed. They have taken a categorical stand that though the advertisement has issued, nothing came to be done against the said

Patna High Court CWJC No.7670 of 2014 dt.04-05-2016 2/2 advertisement.

As and when the exercise for filling up such post will be initiated, afresh, the question of empanelment of these petitioners would be considered, provided they will meet the requirements for such empanelment and consideration.

There is also denial of any pick and chose method adopted in view of the clear stand that nothing has been done in furtherance to Annexure-6.

If that be so, there cannot be any direction or mandamus in anticipation to create a panel to include the name of the petitioners. As and when such a situation arises, petitioners may assail their right.

Writ application stands disposed off with observation and direction as above.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) SKM/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE Uploading Date 04.05.2016 Transmission Date