Satto Chaupal v. The Bihar State And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.161 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4080 of 2017 ====================================================== Satto Chaupal, S/o late Mahendra Chaupal, Resident of Village-Hovidih, P.S. Baheri, Distt. Darbhanga.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The Bihar State.

2. The Collector, Darbhanga.

3. The Block Development Officer, Baheri Block, Distt. Darbhanga.

4. THe Block Education Extension Officer, Block Baheri, Distt. Darbhanga.

5. The Superintedent of Education, Darbhanga.

6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Darbhanga.

7. The Panchayat Secretary,Gram Panchayat Havidih Madhya Under Block Baheri, Distt. Darbhanga.

8. The Mukhia of Gram Panchayat, Havidih Madhya, Under Block Baheri, Distt. Darbhanga.

9. Ram Binod Mahto Village + Post Rohar, Via Benipur, Distt. Darbhanga.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pradeep Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey -AAG15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 11-04-2018 Delay of 26 days in filing of the appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 835 of 2018 is allowed and disposed of. On the basis of a selection process, which is indicated in the order passed by the learned Writ Court said to have been conducted in the year 2008 now clarified at the time of hearing by the petitioner as conducted in the year 2006, petitioner sought

Patna High Court LPA No.161 of 2018 (2) dt.11-04-2018 2/2 admission after a period of more than 11 years and finding that during this period of 11 years the entire process of selection has changed, the rules have been amended passing of T.E.E. examination has been made mandatory and these conditions are not fulfilled, the learned Writ Court has refused to grant relief to the appellant conducted in the year 2008 on the ground that after amendment in the rule, no relief can be granted to the petitioner, we are of the considered view that in doing so the learned Writ Court has not committed any error warranting reconsideration. The appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) K.C.jha/- U