Patna High CourtMJC/2246/2015dismissed

Awdhesh Kumar Singh And Anrs. v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-04Justice Smt. Anjana Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2246 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8483 of 2013 ======================================================

1. Awdhesh Kumar Singh, Son of Baidya Nath Singh, Resident of village - Parsa, P.O. & P.S. Khaira, District - Jamui

2. Ranjay Kumar Sinha, Son of Late Suresh Prasad Sinha, resident of village - Hasdih, P.S. & District - Jamui .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Bihar, Patna

3. The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

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

5. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger

6. The District Magistrate, Jamui

7. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Jamui

8. The Additional District Magistrate, Jamui

9. The Incharge Officer, Nazarat, Jamui

10. The Senior Deputy Collector (Establishment ), Jamui

11. The Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jamui

12. The Block Development officer, Jamui.

13. The Circle Officer, Jamui .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners : Mr. Shree Niwas Singh, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Madhav Prasad Yadav, G.P.-23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 04-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. It appears from the show cause filed by the District Magistrate, Jamui (O.P. No.6) that the case of petitioner nos.1 and 2 was duly considered by the authority and in view of the fact that the name of petitioner no.1 could not fit into the zone of

Patna High Court MJC No.2246 of 2015 (5) dt.04-04-2018 2/2 consideration as per the roster, his case has been rejected, whereas with regard to petitioner no.2, it has been submitted that he was overage. Thus, neither of the two petitioners was fit enough to be included in the panel of 2012.

Thus, due consideration having been given by the Collector, Jamui, the application stands dismissed. (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U