Patna High CourtCWJC/164/2015disposed

Sanjay Kumar Upadhayay v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-07-17Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.164 of 2015 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Upadhayay Son of Late Krishna Prasad Resident of Mainpura P.O + P.S - Danapur Cantt, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal secretary, Finance, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Secretary (Expenditure)Finance Department, Got. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Joint Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The Superintendent, Govt. Press Guljarbag, Patna-7.

6. The Superintendent, Govt. Stationary Store and Publiction, Gulzargab, Patna.-7

7. The Director, Provident Fund, Pant Bhawan, Patna.

8. The Joint Commissioner, Accounts Administration, Provident Fund Directorate, Patna.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amarendra Narayan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ram Balak Mahto ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the fact that in this writ application the petitioner has assailed an order of his transfer dated 9.12.2011 after a period of more than three years on 5.1.2015 and that too after complying the same, this application has to be necessarily misconceived and ill-advised.

Learned counsel for the petitioner then submits that he has complied the order dated 9.12.2011 and as he has already represented to the competent authority that he does not have any qualification to do the work as allotted to him, he should be given

Patna High Court CWJC No.164 of 2015 (2) dt.17-07-2015 a post commensurate to his qualification.

This Court is not aware as to what initial terms and conditions of the petitioner were but if the petitioner stands protected by such order of appointment according to which the present allocation of work is not permissible, the authorities may look into the grievance of the petitioner in accordance with law. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/- U