← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/16066/2017disposed

Anil Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2021-02-22Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16066 of 2017 ====================================================== Anil Kumar Verma, Son of Late Indra Narayan Das, Resident of VillagePilluaha, P.S.- Jadiya, District- Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2.

The Principle Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3.

The Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul.

4.

The District Magistrate, Supaul.

5.

The Deputy Collector Establishment, Supaul 6.

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, Supaul. 7.

The District Selection Committee through its Chairman-cum-District Magistrate, Supaul.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Raj Kamal, Advocate Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sheo Shankar Prasad - Sc-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 22-02-2021 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner was not considered in right perspective. He submits that the petitioner may be granted liberty to approach the District Magistrate, Supaul where he will highlight the decision of this Court to contend that he deserves to be considered against category-C, according to schedule-C. Without expressing any opinion on the merit of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16066 of 2017(3) dt.22-02-2021 2/2 case, the writ application is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to approach respondent no. 4 (District Magistrate, Supaul) who shall examine the claim of the petitioner appropriately in accordance with law.

Necessary decision in this regard must be taken by the respondent no.4 within a maximum period of six months from the date of receipt of representation along with a copy of this order.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U