Patna High CourtCWJC/6059/2011dismissed

Anil Kumar Malviya v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-12-16Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6059 of 2011 ====================================================== Anil Kumar Malviya Son Of Sri Ram Nandan Malviya Resident Of Mohalla/ Town Takua Tarh Rajauli P.O. & P.S. - Rajauli District - Nawada .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Conservator, Environment And Forest Department Old Secretariat, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary To The Government , Environment And Forest Department , Old Secretariat, Patna

3. The State Of Jharkhand Through The Chief Conservator , Environment And Forest Department Secretariat, Ranchi At Jharkhand

4. The Secretary To The Government , Environment & Forest Department, Govt. Of Jharkhand Secretariat, Ranchi (Jharkhand) .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : AC to SC25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 16-12-2015 Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AC to SC No. 25 and learned counsel who has appeared on behalf of the respondent / State of Jharkhand. The petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has made a prayer for commanding the respondents to appoint him as 'Forester'. The petitioner is claiming appointment against an advertisement which was published long back in the year 1981 i.e. much prior to the bifurcation of the State of Bihar and State of Jharkhand. On perusal of paragraph no. 1 of the petition it appears that earlier the petitioner had approached this court which

Patna High Court CWJC No.6059 of 2011 (6) dt.16-12-2015 2/2 was rejected.

Keeping in view the fact that claim is for appointment against an advertisement of the year 1981 as well as the fact that once same prayer of the petitioner was rejected by this court , there is no reason to entertain the writ petition. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U