Patna High CourtMJC/1469/2014disposed

Arvind Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-09-16Mr. Justice Samarendra Pratap Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1469 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3080 of 2010 ====================================================== Arvind Kumar Singh, S/O Late Janeshwar Singh, Village- Ujjaini, P.S.- Tandwa, P.O.- Kalapahad Tendua, District- Aurangabad. .... .... Petitioner.

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Sri Abhijit Sinha, S/O not known District Magistrate, Aurangabad, Bihar.

3. Sri R.K. Khandelwala, S/o not known Commissioner, Magadh Division

4. Sri Amir Subhani, S/o not known, Principal Secretary, Home, Government of Bihar, Patna.

.... .... Opposite Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anuj Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kundan Bhadur Singh ======================================================

CORAM:

HONOURABLE MR.

JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 16-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. It is not in dispute that the petitioner's father was killed in Naxal attack.

The petitioner filed writ application, bearing C.W.J.C. No. 3080 of 2010, for compassionate appointment on the ground that Government has taken a policy decision to appoint the heir of such person, who has been killed in Naxal activities. This Court by order dated 19.10.2012 remitted the matter to the respondents to consider his case for compassionate appointment and not to disqualify him on the ground that he is over age. A show-cause has been filed on behalf of opposite

Patna High Court MJC No.1469 of 2014 (3) dt.16-09-2015 2 / 2 party no.2. With reference to Annexure-F dated 23.08.2013, the learned counsel for the State submits that the case of the petitioner was considered afresh and rejected.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that his case in fact was not considered properly and rejected by giving reference to some policy decision.

As the case of the petitioner has been reconsidered, I do not find that any contempt is made out. However, it will be open for the petitioner that if so advised to challenge the order rejecting his appointment.

This application stands disposed of.

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J.) Uday/- U