← Library
Patna High CourtL.P.A/1226/2018dismissed

Kabindra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2020-02-05Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey,Mr. Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1226 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14751 of 2014 ====================================================== Kabindra Singh, son of Late Ram Janam Singh, resident of Village Bardiha, P.S. Adhoura, District- Kaimur at Bhabua.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Director, Agricultural, Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Magistrate cum Collector, Kaimur at Bhabua. 3.

The District Agricultural Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua. 4.

The Sub- Divisional Agricultural Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua. 5.

Block Agricultural Officer, Block Adhoura, Kaimur at Bhabhua. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr.Tribhuwan Narayan, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13 Mrs. Sumita Kumari, AC to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY) Date : 05-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State.

2. The services of the appellant was dispensed with on the ground of non-cooperation which the appellant has challenged C.W.J.C. No.14184 of 2012, which was set aside vide order dated 30.03.2012 with liberty to file a reply by the appellant with regard to allegation made in the said letter whereafter the authority has rejected the same with the reasons

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1226 of 2018 dt.05-02-2020 2/2 unsatisfactory which has been challenged in the present application and the Court has recorded that during pendency of the litigation, the period of contract itself has lapsed and as such no relief can be granted. However, the future of appellant has been protected in the manner that in future appointment, the tag of "unsatisfactory" would not be treated as stigma.

3. This Court does not find any error in the order. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) ( Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) Nasimul/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 07-02-2020 Transmission Date