Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1908 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Sanjay Kumar S/O Late Yogendra Nath Srivastava, Resident Of Village And P.O.- Siswarkalan, P.S. Nagra, District- Ballia (U.P.), Presently Residing At Quarter No. 55/84, C.I.D. Colony, Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shasti Nagar, Town And District- Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Inspector General of Registration, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Deputy Secretary, Registration, Excise and Prohibition Department, Government of Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Lochan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Lalan Kumar, AC to GP 23 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-04-2015 The claim of the petitioner that he is an employee of the headquarters is totally wrong and motivated submission to make because there is no notification starting from Annexure- 1 onwards to show that the petitioner is an employee of the headquarters. The submission of the counsel for the petitioner that since he was appointed by the IG, Registration, Government of Bihar, therefore, he was appointed at the headquarters is a misplaced kind of submission to make because the IG, Registration is a nodal officer of the Department, therefore, such appointment will be made under his pen and signature. That by itself does not make the petitioner an employee of the headquarters.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1908 of 2014 dt.01-04-2015 2/2 The respondents in their counter affidavit have also denied such a claim. So far as his name in the provisional list is concerned, it is their stand that the same will be considered by authorities when the gradation list is given finality for which exercise is going on in the field. No direction, therefore, is required to be given to consider the petitioner to be an employee of the headquarters to be included in the gradation list of headquarters. Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U