Satish Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2650 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3523 of 2013 ====================================================== Satish Kumar, S/o Late Bhagwan Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Admigaon (Nandgaon)- P.O.- Shastri Nagar, P.S.- Shastri Nagar, Dist- Patna. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sri Anjani Kumar Sinngh, The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna.

3. Sri Sanjay Kumar Agrawal, The District Magistrate, having his office in Collectorate Compound, Patna.

4. Manoj Kumar, The Deputy Collector, Establishment having his office in Collectorate Compound, Patna.

5. Sri Wakil Prasad Singh, The Deputy Collector, Nazarat having his office in Collectoriate Compound, Patna.

6. Dr. Gajendra Prasad Singh, Civil Surgeon-cum-Chief Medical Officer, Patna.

7. Smt. Sujata Chaturvedi, The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patna Division, Patna.

8. Er. Amir Hassan, The Superintendent Engineer, Central Anchal, Road Construction Department, Patna.

9. Sri Prem Kumar Sinha, The District Fishery Officer-cum-Chief Executive Officer.

10. Rajesh Kuamr, The Commandant, BMP-5, Patna. ... ... Respondents/Opp. Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Chandra Bhushan Verma For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal, SC ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 25-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioner is praying for initiation of a proceeding of contempt against the District Magistrate, Patna for non-compliance of the order dated 8.1.2016 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 3523 of 2013. The show-cause has been filed in which the order

Patna High Court MJC No.2650 of 2016(6) dt.25-04-2018 2/2 contained in Memo No. 85 dated 21.2.2018 passed by the Selection Committee has been attached and has recorded that the petitioner has not fulfilled the criteria laid down for regularization in service. It has been stated that as the petitioner has not worked for 240 days preceding five years, which is essential for regularization, his services has not been regularized.

This Court finds that the present contempt proceeding does not survive. Accordingly, the same is dropped. The petitioner, if so advised, or feels aggrieved, he will be at liberty to take proper steps for challenging the aforesaid order.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) rishi/- U