← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/1553/2015dfd for non appearance

Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-02-19Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1553 of 2015 ====================================================== Rakesh Kumar Son of Shivdayal Ram, Resident of Village P.O. Phuha, P.S. Badahra, District- Bhojpur ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah

3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhojpur, Arrah

4. The Additional District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah

5. The District Welfare Officer, Bhojpur, Arrah

6. Senior Additional District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Arrah

7. The Executive Officer, S.D.M. Office, Arrah, Bhojpur ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Pawan Kumar, AC to GA 1 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 19-02-2019 On account of empanelment in the draft panel dated 10.10.2013 the petitioner has approached this Court with a grievance that his appointment to Grade IV was not considered. The respondents have filed a counter affidavit with the specific stand that the petitioner had performed duties as Computer Assistant in the District Election Office, Arrah. The same did not come in the definition of Class IV Umnmidwar Peon and as such the petitioner was not eligible for consideration in the process undertaken for appointment of Class IV employees. Accordingly, his name was delisted from the draft panel pursuant to instructions in this regard dated 31.12.2013 and 29.6.2011. Since the petitioner was not working

Patna High Court CWJC No.1553 of 2015(5) dt.19-02-2019 2/2 in Grade IV his claim could not be considered for appointment in the process undertaken for appointment of Class IV employees.

Since none appears on behalf of the petitioner, without going into merit of the submissions advanced by Counsel for the State the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J.) SNkumar/- U