Munna Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5605 of 2015 ====================================================== Munna Kumar Singh Son of Hira Singh. Resident of Village - Balua, P.O.- Belghat Balua, P.S.- Arrah Muffasil, District - Bhojpur ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary , Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary, Public Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Divisional Commissioner, Patna Division, Patna. 4.

The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah.

5.

The District Development Commissioner, Bhojpur at Arrah. 6.

The Additional Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah.

7.

The Establishment Deputy Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah. 8.

The Nazarat Deputy Collector, Bhojpur at Arrah. 9.

Raj Kumar. Son of Sripati Singh. Resident of Village - Sundarpur Kudia, P.O.- Belghat Balua, P.S.- Arrah Muffasil, District - Bhojpur ...respondent ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Ram Subhas Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr. G.P.Ojha, GA 7 and Mr. Gopal Krishna, AC to GA 7 For respondent no.9 : Mr. Surendra Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 26-02-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and respondent no.9.

Petitioner claims appointment against Grade IV post in the process undertaken by respondent authorities on the basis of panel prepared in 2013. The petitioner has also assailed appointment of respondent no.9 and asserted that in his place he should be considered for appointment on Grade IV post. Respondents in the counter affidavit have specifically asserted that final panel was prepared on 10.5.2014. Petitioner was found at Serial No. 156 and accordingly he was beyond the zone of consideration and could not be selected. On specific

Patna High Court CWJC No. 5605 of 2015(4) dt.26-02-2019 2/2 query being made from the petitioner's counsel as to on what parameter respondent no.9 is inferior to him, learned counsel submits that the petitioner is not in a knowledge of number of working days to the credit of respondent no.9. In absence of specific challenge based at any specific ground against respondent no.9, petitioner cannot assail his candidature or selection in the process undertaken in the year 2013. Specific assertion of the State is that the petitioner was at Serial no. 156 which fact has not been denied or disputed by the petitioner by filing re-joinder to the counter affidavit. In the facts and circumstances, writ petition is devoid of merit and is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi U