Shivaji Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2530 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12836 of 2013 ====================================================== Shivaji Prasad Singh Son of Sri Ban Kuo Singh Resident of Village : - Katma, P.S. : - Manigachhi, District - Darbhanga, at present Village : - Ranna, P.O. : - Ranna, P.S. : - Hathauri, Region, District : - Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar , through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna, namely Sri Anjani Kumar Singh.

2. Sri Raj Kumar Mahajan, Son of name not known the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. Sri Ashutosh Kumar Son of name not known the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. Smt. Vandana Kinni wife of name not known the Commissioner, Darbhanga Pramandal, Darbhanga.

5. Sri Krishna Kumar Sinha Son of name not known the Regional Deputy Director , Darbhanga Pramandal, Darbhanga.

6. Sri Kumar Ravi Son of name not known the District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

7. Sri Ram Sagar Singh Son of name not known the District Education Officer, Darbhanga.

8. Sri Maheshwar Singh Son of name not known the District Programme Officer, Darbhanga.

9. Sri Ram Balak Roy Son of name not known the District Treasury Officer, Darbhanga.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Roy, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jai Shankar Barnawal, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the fact that the direction given by this Court in the connected writ application has been complied, in the sense, that the case of the promotion of the petitioner was considered, this Court would now find

Patna High Court MJC No.2530 of 2014 (2) dt.08-09-2015 that the continuation of the contempt proceeding will be waste of exercise keeping in view that now the petitioner will have to take steps against the order by which his promotion in course of consideration has been refused. That being so, this application is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to take remedial action against the order passed by the authority of the State Government.

With the aforementioned observation and liberty, this application is disposed of.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Ranjan/- U