Prem Nath Jha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12109 of 2012 ====================================================== Prem Nath Jha S/O Late Indra Mohan Jha Resident Of Village- Ladaur, P.SGaighat, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar, through its Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Muzaffarpur. 3.

The Secretary, District Legal Authority, Service, Muzaffarpur. 4.

Block Development Officer, Gaighat, Muzaffarpur. 5.

Mukhiya Of The Panchayat Gaighat, District Muzaffarpur. 6.

Sarpanch Of The Panchayat Gaighat, District- Muzaffarpur. 7.

Surendra Chaudhary, Resident Of Village- Maithi, P.S- Gaighat, DistrictMuzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Amir Alam, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ajeet Kumar, G.A.-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR VERMA ORAL ORDER 13-02-2024 Learned counsel for the petitioner is directed to correct the name of the petitioner in the course of the day.

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

3. The present writ petition has been filed for quashing the order dated 13.04.2011 by which the respondent had selected the respondent no.7 as Para Legal Volunteer in place of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact the petitioner was placed at serial no.6 in the original

Patna High Court CWJC No.12109 of 2012(8) dt.13-02-2024 2/2 selection list and the said selection list was cancelled. Respondent no.7 is working as a Para Legal Volunteer in place of the petitioner.

5. Learned counsel for the State has filed a counter affidavit as well as supplementary counter affidavit stating therein that the petitioner has not raised the objection within time and bare perusal of the Annexure-1 it appears that in view of the decision of the District Legal Services Authority the selection process not completed as yet and even the respondent no.7 has not been appointed on the post in question and no any appointment and posting was made on the basis of the list prepared by the District Legal Services Authority. In view of the aforesaid no case is made out to inference of this Hon'ble Court.

6. In view of the aforesaid that the selection of the respondent no.7 has not been made by the respondent authority and due to ban in the appointment process, the selection process has not completed as yet. In view of the stand taken by the respondent State there is no merit in the writ application. Accordingly, this writ application stands dismissed. (Rajesh Kumar Verma, J) ajay/- U