Nirbhay Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11284 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.

Nirbhay Kumar Son of Sri Shiv Prasad Yadav, Resident of Village-Chak Mahila, P.S. and District Sitamarhi.

2.

Randhir Kumar Singh Son of Ram Kishore Singh, Resident of VillageMajhaur, Via- Nanpur, P.S. Nanpur, District Sitamarhi. 3.

Nitish Kumar, Son of Ram Binod Sah. Resident of Village- Dasai, P.S. Runnisaidpur, District Sitamarhi.

4.

Rajeev Kumar, Son of Baldeo Mahto, resident of Village- Sijuwa, P.S. Mejarganj, District Sitamarhi.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Secretary, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Special Officer on Duty, Rural Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 5.

The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.

6.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Alok Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Prashant Pratap, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 24-08-2023 1.

The present petition has been filed seeking the following relief :- "(i) For issuance of appropriate writ commanding and directing the respondents authority to appoint the petitioners on the post of Assistant Gramin Awas from the merit list published on 8.8.2014 wherein the petitioners were indicated at Serial No. 6. 7 and 8 respectively in waiting list.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11284 of 2015(2) dt.24-08-2023 2/2 (ii) For further direction to the respondents authority to issue appointment letter to the petitioners to above post considering that the post is still vacant under the district of Sitamarhi and the merit list prepared in the year 2014 is going to be expired. "

2.

At the outset, the learned counsel for the respondent- State has submitted that the validity of the panel in question was only for a period of one year, which has expired long back in the year, 2015, hence, the present writ petition has been rendered infructuous.

3.

The aforesaid aspect of the matter has not been disputed by the petitioners. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands dismissed as having been rendered infructuous. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) rinkee/- U