Srawan Kumar Poddar @ Sarvan Kumar Poddar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1559 of 2021 ====================================================== Srawan Kumar Poddar @ Sarvan Kumar Poddar, S/o Satya Narayan Poddar, R/o Anathalay Road, P.S.- Katihar, District- Katihar ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Department of Labour Planning and Training Department, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2.

The Principal Secretary, Labour Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Director, Labour Resources Department, Patna, Bihar 4.

The Director, the Directorate of Employment and Training, Government of Bihar, Patna 5.

The Director, Employment and Training (Training Wing), Bihar, Patna 6.

The Principal, Government Mahila Industrial Training Institute, Katihar ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Suresh Prasad Sah @ Baranwal, Adv.

For the State :

Ms. Shilpi Kishore, A.C. to AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 24-03-2023 Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to remove the defects, if any within two weeks from today. Defect no.3 as pointed out by the office may be ignored. Subject to the above undertaking, this Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. In the present writ application, the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the office order as contained in Memo No. 1532/Patna, dated 24.09.2020 by which the petitioner is said to have been transferred far away from the present institution.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1559 of 2021(9) dt.24-03-2023 2/2 Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has already joined at the transferred place and he is rendering his service there for the last 2 years. It is, however, contended that the petitioner is a differently abled person and he has been adjust having 54 % disability. In this connection, learned counsel relied upon Annexure 'P/1' of the writ application.

It is submitted that since the petitioner is a differently abled person, he had made representation to the concerned authorities to allow him to continue at the same place but it was not considered.

Be that as it may, since the petitioner has already joined and he is working for about 2 years, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the impugned order. The difficulties, if any expressed by the petitioner cannot be gone into by this Court in the present writ application as it is in the administrative domain of the employer.

This writ application stands disposed of accordingly. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) lata/- U