Patna High CourtCWJC/10282/2015dismissed

Kiran Kumar Sahu v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-07-28Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha1 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10282 of 2015 ====================================================== Kiran Kumar Sahu, Head of Department (Mechanical Engineering) since retired Government Polytechnics, Government of Jharkhand, son of Late Gokul Prasad Sahu, at present resident of K-92, P.C. Colony, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Hanuman Nagar, Patna .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary

2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Bihar, Patna

3. The Principal Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna

4. The Principal Secretary, General Administrative Department (Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department), Bihar, Patna

5. The Director, Department of Science & Technology, Bihar, Patna

6. The Joint Director, Department of Science & Technology, Bihar, Patna

7. The Deputy Secretary, Department of Science & Technology, Bihar, Patna

8. The Secretary, State Board of Technical Education, Bihar, Patna

9. The Principal Accountant General (A & E), Bihar, Patna

10. Dwijendra Narain Singh, at present posted as Joint Secretary, Strengthening of State Board of Technical Education, Bihar, Patna .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Kunal Tiwary, Advocate.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Kumar Alok, SC 8 For the A.G.

Binod Kumar Labh, Advocate.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 28-07-2015 Having regard to the fact that this Court, on perusal of the material on record, would find that the respondent no. 10 is not usurper of the office inasmuch as his appointment was made in State of Bihar and thereafter he was selected and gone for some time to State of Jharkhand and again has joined in the State of Bihar, this writ application for issuance of a writ of quo warranto against respondent no. 10 is wholly misconceived and ill advised. It is, accordingly, dismissed.

Sujit/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) U