Patna High CourtL.P.A/1676/2016dismissed

Dr. Vishvendra Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-12-04Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1676 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6739 of 2013 ====================================================== Dr. Vishvendra Kumar Sinha Son Of Chakrapani Garain Resident Of H - 3, Doctor'S Colony Kankarbagh, P.S. Patrakar Nagar, District - Patna. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Principal Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

3. Additional Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

4. Joint Secretary, Department Of Health, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

5. Dr. Satyendra Kumar Sinha Son Of Ambika Prasad J/61, People'S Co - Operative Colony, Kankarbagh, District - Patna. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant :

Mr. Krishna Chandra, Advocate For the Respondent State:

Mr. Prashant Pratap, GP-2 Mr. Gyan Shankar, AC to GP-2 For the Respondent No.5 :

Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shahjanand Sharma, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 04-12-2017 I.A. No. 9132 of 2016 is allowed. Delay of four days is condoned. Matter is taken up on merits.

Writ application of the appellant was dismissed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 18.07.2016. The learned single Judge taking note of the fact that the issue of senior resident-ship and selection thereof of the private respondent made on the basis of advertisement of 1987 and appointed in the year 1991 was sought to be challenged after

Patna High Court LPA No.1676 of 2016(5) dt.04-12-2017 2/2 more than two decades because at a crucial phase of the career of the appellant he wants to knock out respondent No.5 from the pedestal he has been holding all these years. Taking into consideration the narration of facts the learned single Judge rightly was not convinced that a case was made out for reopening such issues at this particular hour to dislodge the private respondent of his seniority.

The order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any infirmity. The Court is not inclined to interfere with the order.

Appeal is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Pawan/- U