Ramautar Paswan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13421 of 2008 ====================================================== Ramautar Paswan son of Late Ram Prasad Paswan, Resident of Village - Suggi Chandi Asthan, P.S. - Amas, Distt. - Gaya. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Gaya.

3. Deputy Collector, District Nazarat, Gaya

4. Block Development Officer, Amas Prakhand, Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nand Kishore Pd.Sinha For the State : None.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

17-04-2017 Heard Sri Nand Kishore Prasad Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner. None appeared on behalf of State. The petitioner has approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, with a prayer to quash a panel of daily-wages Class IV employees, which was prepared in the year 2008.

It was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that earlier also, petitioner had approached this Court by filing a writ petition, which was disposed of on 09-09-2005, with an observation that respondent no. 2 may consider the case of the petitioner alongwith others regarding inclusion of his name in the district panel. It has been claimed that even after order of this Court, his case was not considered as per his claim.

Patna High Court CWJC No.13421 of 2008 (4) dt.17-04-2017 2/2 In this case, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents, wherein, it has been indicated that after cancelling all earlier advertisements, fresh advertisement, vide Advertisement No. 1 of 2013-14 was already published. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner has also filed reply to the counter affidavit and submits that the petitioner has already crossed age limit. Considering the fact that life of panel was only for one year as well as in view of fact disclosed in the counter affidavit that fresh advertisement was already published, vide Advertisement No. 1 of 2013-14, there is no reason to pass any positive order in favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U