Rahul Kumar And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9212 of 2016 ===========================================================

1. Rahul Kumar S/o Sri Rajendra Prasad Yadav Resident of Village + P.O. - Kariho, P.S. & District Supaul.

2. Ashok Kumar Suman S/o Devendra Prasad Mehta Resident of Village - Bachnuchakla, P.O. + P.S. Ratanpur, District - Supaul.

3. Navneet Nayan S/o Shahdev Mehta Resident of Village + P.O. Nirmali, P.S. Pipara, District - Supaul.

.... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mishan Director, Bihar Administrative Reforms Mishan Society, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, Chayan Samittee, Supaul.

4. The Nodal Officer of Mishan Director, Supaul. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, AAG-12 Mrs. Nutan Sahay, AC to AAG-12 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 17-11-2016 In this writ application a direction has been sought for to engage or appoint the petitioners on contract as an Executive Assistant on the basis of a panel prepared by the district authorities. Since no order for their engagement/hiring has been issued after the preparation of the panel, the writ application came to be filed. The State was directed to explain the reason thereof. It seems from the counter affidavit that various objections and complaints were received against the preparation of the panel by the District Magistrate and, therefore, the panel in question has not been

Patna High Court CWJC No.9212 of 2016 dt.17-11-2016 2/2 given finality.

In fact it seems that the panel has been revised and re-revised and every time some discrepancy and other was noticed. If it is so then since the panel in question has not attained finality it will be too early for this Court to give any direction for making any appointment from that panel. Any right for consideration can only flow after the panel attains finality. The writ application, therefore, is premature. It stands disposed of with the observations as above.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 18.11.2016 Transmission Date N/A