Ramesh Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.836 of 2015 =========================================================== Ramesh Yadav, son of Late Laxmi Yadav, resident of village- Aguanpur, P.O.- Sisai, District - Saharsa.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Department of Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Divisional Commissioner, Koshi Division, Saharsa.

4. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.

5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi Division, Saharsa.

6. The District Education Officer, Saharsa.

7. The Principal, Zila School, Saharsa.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 25-09-2018 Heard learned advocate on record for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. At the very outset, learned advocate on record for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner has taken the brief along with a duly signed 'No Objection' from him a few months back and since then there has been no information available with him.

3. From the records, it transpires that no other learned counsel has entered appearance on behalf of the petitioner.

4. The petitioner has moved the Court for the

Patna High Court CWJC No.836 of 2015 dt.25-09-2018 2/2 following relief :- " For issuance of a writ preferably in the nature of Mandamus commanding and directing the Respondents concerned to appoint the petitioner on regular post of Class IV/Peon under the services of Respondent State as the petitioner has continuously discharged duties as Class IV employee in School in question between 01.01.1982 to 1985 for more than 600 days on daily wages basis but despite that the Respondents concerned appointed other candidate some of whom are even junior to the petitioner but the petitioner is being discriminated illegally due to extraneous consideration."

5. Learned counsel for the State submitted that as per the stand taken in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no. 5, the petitioner had twice earlier moved the Court for the same relief and pursuant thereto, the authorities have also passed an order.

6. Having regard to the aforesaid, the Court finds no merit in the present writ application. Accordingly ̧ the same stands dismissed.

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.) N.H./- Ranjeet/- AFR/NAFR U