Krishang Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10233 of 2025 ====================================================== Krishang Kumar Son of Shri Murlidhar Prasad, resident of 101 Ramayan Apartment, JP Das Lane, Near Aparna Apartment, New Dakbungalow Road, P.S.-Gandhi Maidan, District-Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Health Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Secretary, Road Construction Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5.

The Bihar Police Building Corporation through its Managing Director, Kautilya Nagar, Patna-800014.

6.

The Bihar State Tourism Corporation Limited through its Managing Director, Beer Chand Patel Path, Patna-800001. 7.

The Bihar Public Service Commission through its Chairman, 15 Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna-800001.

8.

The Controller of Examination, Bihar Public Service Commission, 15 Jawaharlal Nehru Marg, Bailey Road, Patna-800001. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. S D Yadav, AAG-9 Mr. Braj Bhushan Mishra, AC to AAG-9 For the BPSC :

Mr. Sanjay Pandey, Adv.

Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, Adv.

For the Res. No. 6 :

Mrs. Anukriti Jaipuriyar, Adv.

Mr. Rajnikant Kumar, Adv.

Mrs. Priti Mahato, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard the parties.

2. At the outset, Mr. Uday Pratap Singh, learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that for redressal of the grievance, the petitioner has approached before the concerned authorities, but they are sitting tight over the matter and, till

Patna High Court CWJC No.10233 of 2025(2) dt.03-07-2025 2/2 date, they have not considered the claim of the petitioner, compelling him to approach before this Court.

3. Learned Advocate for the respondents vehemently opposed the prayer as claimed for in the writ petition, and submits that in no circumstances, for such relief the writ of mandamus can be issued.

4. This Court finds substance in the submissions made by the learned Advocate for the respondents. However, the petitioner is not precluded to pursue his remedy before the concerned authorities.

5. Accordingly, the present writ petition stands disposed off.

6. It is expected that the representation filed by the petitioner shall be considered and disposed off, in accordance with law.

(Harish Kumar, J) shivank/- U