Nitu Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.483 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9168 of 2008 =========================================================== Nitu Singh D/o Sri Baijnath Singh, W/o Ranjan Kumar, resident of village- Pakauli, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Secretary, Department of Rural Development and Panchayat Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Secretary Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The Director, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna

5. District Magistrate, Vaishali

6. Block Development Officer, Bidupur, Vaishali

7. The District Panchayati Raj Officer, Vaishali, Hajipur

8. Rajeev Ranjan son of Binod Singh, resident of village- Pakauli, P.O.- Rajasan, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Aditya Narayan Singh, Advocate Mr. A.R. Pandey, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG-15 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 28-03-2017 Delay in filing of the appeal is condoned.

Having heard learned counsel for the appellant, we are of the considered view that once it was found by the learned Writ Court that on the date when the petitioner was appointed, petitioner did not possess the minimum qualification required for appointment i.e. Matriculation and had only acquired the certificate of Madhyama

Patna High Court LPA No.483 of 2016 dt.28-03-2017 2/2 on the relevant date of appointment, in dismissing the writ petition, we see no error in the order passed by the learned Writ Court warranting re-consideration. The subsequent amendment to the Rule prospectively with effect from 31.1.2008 will not help the petitioner in canvassing any contention now.

Even if, according to the petitioner, some person has been appointed from the same panel, once it is evident from the record that the petitioner does not fulfil the statutory minimum qualification, we see no reason to make indulgence in the matter. The appeal is dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 1.4.2017 Transmission Date N/A