Vishwa Vijay Ranjan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7559 of 2011 ====================================================== VISHWA VIJAY RANJAN PRASAD S/O Late Dineshwar Prasad, C/O Shri Jai Prakash Sahay R/O Flat No. 109, Sharan Vihar Apartment, G.D.Mishra Path, Patliputra Colony, P.S.,Patliputr Town and Distt.-Patna ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

THE STATE OF BIHAR and ORS 2.

Managing Director, Bihar State Text Book Publishing Corporation Ltd. A Government Of Bihar Undertaking Budh Marg Road, P.S.-Kotwali, Town and Distt.-Patna ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nazir Alam For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Manoj Kumar, AC to GP 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-07-2019 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the respondents-State.

Writ petition has been filed claiming appointment of the petitioner as Works Manager in the office of respondent no.2 on contractual basis. Prayer has been made for quashing of appointment of respondent no.3 and petitioner should be appointed on contractual basis.

Pleadings on record (second supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner) disclose that respondent no.3 whose appointment has been challenged and in whose place, petitioner has sought appointment of contractual basis has since retired. Authorities thereafter have engaged one Awadhesh

Patna High Court CWJC No.7559 of 2011(6) dt.01-07-2019 2/2 Kumar Singh from education service on deputation and entrusted the work of Works Manager. Selection of Awadhesh Kumar Singh has not been challenged by the petitioner. Yet third supplementary affidavit has been filed wherein it has been stated that one Sanjay Kumar thereafter was appointed to discharge the work of works manager. That apart, this court would observe that the petitioner's claim is for contractual and the period for which contractual appointment was to be done i.e. two years has lapsed long back.

Having regard to the aforesaid fact, this court would observe that the writ petition does not merit consideration as contractual period has since lapsed.

Writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) s.hassan/- U