Brij Nandan Singh v. The Bihar State Electricity Board And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.2007 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6865 of 2015 ====================================================== Brij Nandan Singh son of Late Sheo Pujan Singh, Resident of Mohalla - D.V.C. Colony, Jakkanpur, P.S. - Jakkanpur, District - Patna. ... ... Appellant

Versus

1.

The Bihar State Electricity Bord, through its Chairman, Bailey Road, Patna. 2.

The Secretary, Bihar Holding Company Ltd., Vidyut Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

3.

The Director (Adm.) Bihar State Electric Power (Holding) Company Ltd., Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Dy. Director (Human Resources) Bihar State Power Holding Company Ltd., Bihar, Patna.

5.

The General Manager cum Chief Engineer, South Bihar Power Supply Ltd., Bihar ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant :

Mr. Dhananjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. Vinay Kirti Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, Advocate Mr. Akhileshwar Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 12-09-2017 Heard counsel for the appellant and the senior counsel for the Power Holding Company.

The order under challenge is dated 01.05.2015 passed by the learned single Judge, who after hearing the parties disposed of the writ application giving an opening for consideration, but the immediate relief of quashing the advertisement for appointment on the post of Junior Engineer was negated. Having given a patient and detailed hearing to the counsel

Patna High Court LPA No.2007 of 2015(2) dt.12-09-2017 2/2 for the appellant, we do not disagree with the observations and findings given by the learned single Judge on the ground that there is no occasion to quash an advertisement against which the appointments have already been made and third party rights have been created.

The stand of the counsel for the appellant that it is a case of discrimination and fair opportunity for consideration for accommodation to the higher post has not been given despite appellant having undergone training and acquired skill seems to be misplaced because the advertisement called for applications for appointment to the post of junior engineer and was not an exercise for granting accommodation/promotion. Any right for consideration will flow from the terms of advertisement and not otherwise provided the person fulfills the eligibility. Appeal, therefore, has no merit. It is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Pawan/- U