Ram Dular Manjhi And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15550 of 2008 ====================================================== 1.
Ram Dular Manjhi, son of Nand Prasad Manjhi, resident of villageKhairahi Udho, P.O.-Mathia, P.S.-Darauli, District- Siwan. 2.
Shiv Mangal Paswan, son of Bhojram, resident of village and PostBelao, P.S.-Darauli, District-Siwan. 3.
Motilal Yadav, sonof Paramhans Yadav, resident of village +PostBelaudi, P.S.-Guthani, District- Siwan. 4.
Prahalad Yadav, son of RamashankarYadav, resident of villageBahaliyan, P.O.-Tali, P.S.-Guthani, District- Siwan. 5.
Vyaslal Ram, son of late Budhan Ram, village-Sanhaula, P.O.- Bakulari, P.S.-Guthani, District- Siwan.
6.
Bairister Yadav, son of late Shyama Yadav, village-Guthani Tola Kardaspur, P.S.-Guthani, District- Siwan.
7.
Sampat Harijan, son of late Harun Harijan, village-Bakulari, P.S.- Guthani, District-Siwan.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1.
The State of Bihar.
2.
The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3.
The Joint Secretary, Home (Police) Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4.
The Director General of Police, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5.
The District Magistrate, Siwan.
6.
The Superintendent of Police, Siwan.
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Raghwendra Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Santosh Kumar, AC to G.P.-9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 04-02-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.
The petitioners seek direction to the respondent authorities to appoint them after giving relaxation of their age and experience, who were working prior to 1990 and to dispose of the representations filed by them in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that this
Patna High Court CWJC No.15550 of 2008 (3) dt.04-02-2016 2/2 application has been filed in view of the direction contained in the order dated 25.02.2005 passed in CWJC No.2811 of 2000 by which a Single Judge Bench of this Court, while rejecting the request of the petitioners, had directed to consider their cases for appointment if some posts are required to be filled up after following the procedure as envisaged for such appointment but giving them relaxation of age for the period they have discharged their duties. However, it is not stated anywhere that some vacancies are going to be filled up in accordance with law and the petitioners, though had applied, have not been given such weightage as per the direction as contained in Annexure-3.
Learned counsel at the time of hearing submits that the petitioners are seeking regularization as they were working continuously from 1987-89 itself, however, in view of the decision relied upon by the petitioners itself showing inability for regularization of the services of the petitioners of that case, this Court is also unable to accept such prayer of regularization of the petitioners.
Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J) V.K. Pandey/- U