Ghanshyam Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1424 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 17104 of 2013 ====================================================== Ghanshyam Sah, Son of Late Sukdeo Sah, Resident of Village Bhangama, Police Station- Barhat in the District of Banka. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resource Development, Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Research and Training, Department of Human Resources, Development of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Bihar Staff Selection Commission, P.S. - Veterinary College Campus, Patna- 4, through its Chairman.

5. The Chairman, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College Campus, Patna- 14

6. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna.

7. The Director, Eastern Region, Committee, National Council for Teacher Education, 15 Neelkanti Najhar, Nayapatti, Bhubneshwar 07510112.

8. The Principal, P.T.E. College, Doranda, Hinoo, Ranchi-2 .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance:

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gopal Prasad Roy, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Avnish Nandan Sinha, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 27-01-2016 The counsel for the petitioner submits that a group of cases was heard together along with CWJC No. 17899/2012 (Kanti Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) which was disposed

Patna High Court MJC No.1424 of 2014 (5) dt.27-01-2016 2/2 of on 15.01.2014. The counsel for the petitioner submits that the State has filed counter affidavit pointing out four categories of cases. As per the claim of the petitioner, his case does not come in any of the four categories and, as such, his case is quite different to the case of Kanti Kumari (Supra). The petitioner further submits that he had filed an application that his case does not come under any of the categories and, as such, his case should be heard separately. The counsel for the State does not dispute the submission of the counsel for the petitioner. In that view of the matter, the order passed in CWJC No. 17899/2012 and its analogous cases will not be treated to have been passed in the case of the present petitioner, i.e. CWJC No.

17104/2013 and, accordingly, let CWJC No. 17104/2013 (Ghanshyam Sah v. The State of Bihar & Ors.) be treated not to have been disposed of in terms of the order passed in Kanti Kumari (Supra). Accordingly, this case should be listed before the appropriate bench. The Registry is directed to list case as per the roster.

Accordingly, this MJC application is disposed of. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Dilip/- U