Deonandan Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.12 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 416 of 2005 ====================================================== Deonandan Singh son of Late Girish Prasad Singh, resident of village - Bithalpur, P.S. - Jamui, District - Jamui.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Revenue and Land Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna at present Sri C. Ashok Bardhan.

2. The Divisional Commissioner, Munger Division, Munger at present Sri Sunil Kumar Singh.

3. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Jamki at present Sri Shashi Kant Tiwari.

4. The Additional District Magistrate (Establishment), Jamui at present Sri Choudhari Anant Narayan.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jyoti Ranjan Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. R.R. Sinha, SC-19 Mr. A.K. Sinha, AC to SC-19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 19-01-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In this case, the petitioner has a grievance that the respondents are violating and flouting the order dated 3rd July 2007, arising from C.W.J.C. No. 16306 of 2004 where the Court has directed the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for appointment if his name finds place in the panel and if he is found within zone of consideration.

It has been brought to notice of this Court that an

Patna High Court MJC No.12 of 2015 (2) dt.19-01-2017 2/2 advertisement was published, applications were called, parties were asked to appear in the process of selection and the final panel of selected candidates have been prepared.

The counsel for the petitioner submits that the matter is of the year 2001, relates to appointment on class-IV post, a panel was prepared, but the petitioner has not been appointed. If the petitioner is feeling aggrieved that he has not been appointed then he should take proper steps for raising his grievance.

This Court does not find any merit in the present contempt proceeding and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U