Arvnid Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16697 of 2010 ====================================================== Arvind Kumar Yadav S/O Rameshwar Yadav R/O Vill.- Jagankitta, P.O.- Hirambi, P.S.- Punasiya, Distt.- Banka .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary Minor Irrigation Department, Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

2. The Chief Engineer Minor Irrigation (North), Water Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Executive Engineer Minor Irrigation Sub-Division, Darbhanga .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arvind Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Ga5) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 19-06-2018 The present writ petition has been filed for assailing the order passed by the three Men Committee constituted by a Division Bench of this Court, as well as communicated to the petitioner vide Memo dated 28.2.2009, whereby and whereunder the case of the petitioner for absorption has been rejected. The petitioner in the writ petition has assailed the said order on the ground that the impugned order, as contained in Memo No. 28.2.2009 has been passed by a One-man committee whereas the learned Division Bench of this Court had constituted three-man committee. In this regard, this Court finds from the impugned order that the same has been signed by all the three members of the Committee, hence the impugned order cannot be

Patna High Court CWJC No.16697 of 2010 (3) dt.19-06-2018 2/2 said to be passed by a one Man Committee.

I have heard the learned counsel for the respondents and perused the materials on record and find that the petitioner could not produce even his appointment letter before the three men Committee to show that he had worked even as a temporary employee. In fact, no such appointment letter has been annexed with the present writ petition. Moreover, three-man Committee has found that the petitioner had not worked continuously for a period of 10 years as per the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnatka vs. Uma Devi & Ors. reported in (2006) 4 SCC 1.

Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as discussed herein above, there is no merit in the present writ petition and accordingly, the same is dismissed. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) BTiwary/- U