Amod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1134 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11824 of 2007 =========================================================== Amod Kumar Son of Baidyanath Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Nerut, P.S. - Sare (Asthawan), District - Nalanda.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. District Magistrate, Sheikhpura.

5. Deputy Development Commissioner, Sheikhpura.

6. Additional Collector, Sheikhpura.

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

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Rajendra Prasad Sr. Advocate Mr. Pramod Kumar Advocate Mr. Ritesh Kumar Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Yogendra Pd. Sinha A.A.G.-15 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 03-08-2017 Heard learned senior counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State.

The dismissal of the writ application vide order, dated 28.04.201e by the Learned Single Judge is subject matter of challenge in the present appeal. The writ application of the appellant was dismissed by the Learned Single Judge refusing to give any

Patna High Court LPA No.1134 of 2015 dt.03-08-2017 2/2 benefit or relief with regard to appointment on a Class-III post in Shiekhpura district on the basis of an examination conducted by Bihar Public Service Commission. The advertisement was published in the year 1998, bearing Advertisement No. 54 of 1998. Keeping in mind the controversial circumstances, when a criminal case has been filed against the appellant and there was allegation of impersonation etc., the Learned Single Judge refused to give any direction in favour of the petitioner. In addition to that since the advertisement was of the year 1998 almost 20 years have now gone past, there is no sense left for any deliberation or adjudication with regard to the appointments on the basis of the so called success in the examination when there is another controversy with regard to the appellant not turning up for verification of his documents well within time.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SKM/- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE Uploading Date 07.08.2017 Transmission Date