← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/1608/2024disposed

Kuldeep Yadav v. District Selection Committee, Through District Magistrate, Jamui

2026-02-13Mr. Justice Rajesh Kumar Verma2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1608 of 2024 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17852 of 2015 ====================================================== Kuldeep Yadav S/o Chhote Lal Yadav Resident of Village- Kalyanpur, P.S. and District-Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

District Selection Committee, through District Magistrate, Jamui Sri Rakesh Kumar.

2.

Mr. Deepak Kumar Singh, Principal Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Dr. B Rajender, Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Sri Sanjay Kumar, Divisional Commissioner, Munger. 5.

Sri Rakesh Kumar, District Magistrate, cum-Chairman, District Selection Committee, Jamui.

6.

Miss Abu Amla, Nazarat Deputy Collector, Jamui. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh For the State :

Mr. Asif Kalim, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2. The present contempt application has been filed for non-compliance of the order dated 08.01.2024 passed in CWJC No. 17852 of 2015.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that a direction was given to the Opposite Party No. 5 to pass a fresh and speaking order within a period of three months.

4. Learned counsel for the State has filed a show

Patna High Court MJC No.1608 of 2024(4) dt.13-02-2026 2/2 cause stating therein that in compliance of the order dated 08.01.2024, the District Magistrate, Jamui has passed the speaking order dated 19.02.2024 which suggests that the order of this Court has been complied with and hence no fresh order is required to be passed.

5. In view of the aforesaid, the contempt application stands disposed of.

6. The petitioner is at liberty to assail the same before the appropriate forum, if so advised.

(Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) Ibrar//- U