Patna High CourtL.P.A/753/2017dismissed

Sunil Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-04-27Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.753 of 2017 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1276 of 2009 ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Sinha, son of Late Chandrika Prasad, Resdient of MohallaChirayatand South of Tarkeshwar Path, P.O.- Patna G.P.O., P.s.- Kankarbagh, District- Patna.

... ... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Patna.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Patna Sadar, Patna.

4. The Additional District Magistrate (Establishment), Patna. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Vijay Kumar @ Vijay Kr. Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date : 27-04-2018 Heard counsel for the appellant. Perused the impugned order dated 29.03.2017 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 1276 of 2009.

The material, which is already on record in the writ application, indicates that the engagement of the petitioner by the Sub Divisional Magistrate as a Muharrir was not done by following any process or procedure. The materials, especially Annexure-4 series itself, indicates that these are backdoor appointments.

Patna High Court LPA No.753 of 2017 dt.27-04-2018 2/2 While considering the matter earlier, the Bench presided by Hon'ble the Chief Justice gave an option and opening to the appellant in his order dated 15.01.2018 to bring material to show that such appointment or engagement was irregular and not illegal. Nothing new has been said or brought on record to interfere with the impugned order of the learned single Judge. Besides even if the submission of the counsel for the appellant is accepted that he worked till the year 2001, the fact is that for the last 17 years now there is no relationship between any authorities and the appellant.

The impugned order does not require any interference. Appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Nilu Agrawal, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 28.04.2018 Transmission Date N/A