Meena Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11518 of 2011 ====================================================== Meena Kumari , wife of Ranjan Ravidas, resident of Mo. Purbi Utta, P.S. and Distt. Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Home Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director General of Police, (Home Guards), Bihar, Patna
4. Chief Commandant Grih Raksha Wahini, Bihar, Patna
5. The Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad
6. The Superintendent of Police Arwal .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Birendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. AC to AAG-2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 14-01-2016 Heard Sri Bajrangi Lal, learned counsel, who was assisted by Sri Birendra Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG-2.
The petitioner, who was enrolled as Urban Home Guard and is discharging her duty as such in Jehanabad district, has approached this Court with a prayer to direct the Respondents to appoint her as Clerk against vacant sanctioned post. It has been claimed by the petitioner that she had requisite qualification for the said post. In paragraph-7 of the writ petition, a vague statement has been made that an advertisement was published for the post of Clerk and 4th grade post from amongst personnel of Home Guard, but name of the petitioner was not included. Nothing has been
Patna High Court CWJC No.11518 of 2011 (3) dt.14-01-2016 2/2 indicated as to on which date advertisement was published. It has also not been indicated as to whether the advertisement was published either in the news paper or it was pasted on the Notice Board, nor any document has been brought on record to suggest whether the post was advertised or not.
In this case, separate counter affidavits have been filed on behalf of Respondent nos. 3 and 4 as well as Respondent no.6. In both counter affidavits also; in sum and substance same plea has been taken that a vague statement has been made. In view of vague statement, it would be difficult for this Court to examine the matter. Accordingly, I do not find any ground to pass any positive order. The writ petition stands disposed of.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U