Manoj Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4891 of 2012 ====================================================== Manoj Kumar S/O Sri Ramchandra Chaudhary R/O Village- Srinath Paran, P.O.-Jagdish Paran, P.S.- Chak Mahsi, District- Samastipur ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Executive Director State Health Committee, Bihar, Family Welfare Building, Sheikhpura, Patna-14 3.

The District Magistrate, Samastipur 4.

The Additional Collector, Samastipur 5.

The Civil Surgeon-Cum-Chief Medical Officer, Samastipur 6.

The District Malaria Officer, Samastipur 7.

The District Programme Manager, District Health Society, Samastipur ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Suraj Narain Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Syed Hussain Majeed, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 29-01-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Kalazar Technical Supervisor (K.T.S) in the district of Samastipur.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement the petitioner has applied for the post in question and as per the advertisement, in each district 6 K.T.S were to be appointed out of which 3 post was for general category, 1 post was for E.B.C., 1 post was for S.C and 1 post was for B.C category. Accordingly, the petitioner had applied

Patna High Court CWJC No.4891 of 2012 dt.29-01-2024 2/2 for the post in question before the respondent no. 5 and the petitioner has received the interview letter and has participated in the selection process but till date the petitioner has not received any letter from the authority concerned with regard to his appointment.

4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand refers to the paragraph nos. 8, 9 and 10 of the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner has got only 43 marks in total and on that ground he was not selected for the said post as the highest marks obtained was 94. He further submits that the qualifying marks was 50% and the petitioner was not qualified for the said post and hence, no appointment letter was issued to him. And the persons who have secured higher marks than that of the petitioner have been appointed on the post in question.

5. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, there is no merit in the writ petition and the same stands dismissed.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Vanisha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 19.02.2024 Transmission Date N/A