Awadh Bihari Ram v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21479 of 2011 ====================================================== Awadh Bihari Ram S/O Sri Ram Narayan Ram R/O Vill.- Sri Rampur, P.S.- Lesliganj, Distt.- Palamu, At Present- Forestor, Minor Forest Produced Project, Ranchi Division, Gumla Range, Gumla ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Sinchai Bhawan, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2.

The Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, through its Managing Director 13, Patliputra Colony, Patna 3.

The Managing Director, Bihar State Forest Development Corporation, 13, Patliputra Colony, Patna.

4.

The State Of Jharkhand, through its Secretary, Department of Forest and Environment, Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand).

5.

The Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation Hinoo Chowk, Ranchi, through the Managing Director.

6.

The Managing Director, Jharkhand State Forest Development Corporation, Hinoo Chowk, Ranchi, Jharkhand.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

None.

For the State :

Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, GP-26.

For the BSFDC :

Mr. R. K. Shukla with Ms. Ritu Raj Shukla, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 23-02-2023 None appears for the petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Anil Kumar Singh, GP-26 representing the State and learned counsel for the Bihar State Forest Development Corporation (for brevity 'BSFDC').

3. It is apparent from the order dated 18-10-2011 (Annexure-3) that the Departmental Promotion Committee (for short 'DPC') did not find the petitioner eligible for promotion.

Patna High Court CWJC No.21479 of 2011(4) dt.23-02-2023 2/2

4. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 and 6. The counter affidavit of respondents claims the decision of the Committee to be founded on the record.

5. Earlier, on account of non-appearance of the petitioner's counsel, the matter was dismissed for default on 18-05-2016. It has, therefore, been restored in proceedings arising out of M. J. C. No. 2287 of 2016 vide order dated 19-09-2018.

6. Today, when the matter is called, again, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. Without expressing any opinion on the above observations, taken from the records, the writ application is dismissed for want of prosecution. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) shyambihari/- U