Kamlesh Prasad Sharma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2067 of 2015 =========================================================== Kamlesh Prasad Sharma, Son of Ram Prasad Sharma, Resident of Village - Khudra, P.O. + P.S. - Nuaon, District - Kaimur (Bhabua). .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Baily Road, Patna Government of Bihar.

2. The Collector, Kaimur, Bhabua.

3. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Kaimur (Bhabua).

4. Block Development Officer, Kaimur (Bhabua).

5. Block Education Extension Officer, Kaimur (Bhabua).

6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Nuaon, Block Nuaon, District - Kaimur (Bhabua).

7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Nuaon Block Nuaon, District - Kaimur (Bhabua).

8. Pappu Kumar Gupta, Son of Shiv Parsan Sah, Resident of Village - Trardh, P.O. - Odar, P.S. - Sonha, District - Kaimur.

9. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Son of Ramawatar Roy, Resident of Deoria, P.O. - Panjrao, District - Kaimur.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 27-08-2018 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State and respondent no. 9 have assisted the Court.

2. The petitioner has moved the Court for the following reliefs:

"(a) To quash the order dated 10.05.2012 passed in Appeal No. 10/2011 by respondent no. 3 (Annexure-6).

(b) To direct the respondent no. 6 and 7 for appointment of petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher on the counseling held on the basis of decision taken on 01.12.2013 by the employment committee.

Patna High Court CWJC No.2067 of 2015 dt.27-08-2018 2/2 (c) Any other relief(s) as found entitle under the law."

3. Learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 submitted that his joining has not been accepted by the school. Though, learned counsel for the respondent no. 9 is present but he claims to be at serial no. 2 of the merit list in which the petitioner was at serial no. 3 and respondent no. 8 was at serial no. 5 and the person at serial no. 1 in the merit list did not join but from the pleadings, it appears that the respondent no. 8 has also been removed on the ground of his certificates being forged and fabricated.

4. Having regard to the aforesaid, as also the fact that nobody is present to press the writ application, the same stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) P. Kumar AFR/NAFR U