Patna High CourtC. REV./247/2016dismissed

Arun Kumar v. The Union Of India, Through Chairman And ORS.

2017-05-04Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.247 of 2016 In Letters Patent Appeal No.912 of 2015 ====================================================== Arun Kumar son of Jagdeo Singh, resident of village Nishibichak, PO + P.S. Fatuha, District Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The Union of India, Through Chairman, Railway Board, Government of India, New Delhi

2. The Chief Manager, Hajipur Railway Zone, Hajipur

3. The Deputy Chief Personnel Officer (HRD) cum- Chief Manager (Personnel), East Central Railway, Hajipur

4. Divisional Manager, Railway, Danapur

5. Balusahi Singh son of late Chandeshwar Singh

6. Most. Devmati Devi W/o Late Bechan Singh (now deceased, original petitioner No.2)

7. Surya Dev Kumar son of late Bechan Singh (now deceased, original petitioner No.2)

8. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Patna

9. Additional Collector, Patna

10. The Deputy Collector, Land Reforms, Patna

11. The District Land Acquisition Officer, Patna

12. Sub Divisional Officer, Patna City

13. The Circle Officer, Fatuha .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghwanand For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sharam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 04-05-2017 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the Union of India representing the Railways.

The Division Bench has rightly held that there is an obligation for any claimant for appointment under the Railways to have a minimum qualification of Class VIIIth pass. The

Patna High Court C. REV. No.247 of 2016 (4) dt.04-05-2017 2/2 Division Bench has further given a leeway and indulgence to the present petitioner to acquire educational qualification even now and once he becomes eligible, his claim for appointment will be considered favourably. Nothing more is required to be done by waiving the minimum educational qualification which, in the opinion of this Court, is required in terms of 1983 Policy. Review has now merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) sk U