Tinku Kumar Rajak v. Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12378 of 2019 ====================================================== Tinku Kumar Rajak, Son of Sitaram Rajak, Resident of MohallaKrishnapatti, adjacent to Congress Office, Court Road, Jamui, P.S. and District- Jamui ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

Union of India through Superintendent of Post Offices, Munger Division, Munger.

2.

Post Master General, Bihar, Patna.

3.

Superintendent of Post Offices, Munger Division, Munger. 4.

Assistant Superintendent of Post, Jamui Sub Division, Jamui. 5.

Abinash Kumar, Son of Sri Shailendra Ravidas, Resident of Village- Mikli Mahuvati, P.O.- Murgawan, P.S.- Islam Pur, District- Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate For the U.O.I.

:

Mr.Ram Anurag Singh, C.G.C.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 25-06-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the Union of India.

The contention raised is that non-supply of the relevant documents has prejudiced because of the petitioner inasmuch as the evidence with regard to the counselling of Abinash Kumar is completely wanting.

We have considered the submissions raised. The counselling has been done and the Counsellors have gone through the records of Abinash Kumar on presentation before

Patna High Court CWJC No.12378 of 2019(2) dt.25-06-2019 2/2 them. The presumption therefore is that if the attendance sheet has been marked signed, then the person has physically appeared in the counselling. No evidence to the contrary was led to establish that the said Abinash Kumar had not appeared at the time of counselling. The allegations remained unsubstantiated and this is the finding recorded by the Tribunal. We entirely agree with the same and there is no legal or factual error. The petition lacks merits and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U