← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/15036/2008dismissed

Ram Nandan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-09-18Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15036 of 2008 ====================================================== Ram Nandan Yadav, son of Late Bhuneshwar Yadav, resident of village Bhagwanpur Post Office Sisaiee, Police Station Saharsa, Block - Sattar katiya, District Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa

3. The Deputy Collector Establishment Saharsa

4. The Deputy Collector Nazarat Saharsa Collectorate Saharsa

5. The Sub Divisional Officer Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy Mr. Ashish Dev For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 18-09-2015 Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to AAG No. 6.

The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the Respondents to consider the petitioner's case for regular appointment on Class IV post in view of the Government Resolution contained in Memo No. 639 Dated 16.3.2006. By the said Resolution the cut off date was extended from 1.8.1985 to 11.12.1990. It is not in dispute that while extending the cut off date it was made clear that the case of those employees who have worked for five years prior to the cut off date and continuously for 240 days may be considered for regularization. Learned counsel

Patna High Court CWJC No.15036 of 2008 (2) dt.18-09-2015 2/2 for the petitioner in view of the statement made in the writ petition accepts that he has not completed five years prior to the cut off date. It is also not in dispute that petitioner has already been retrenched long back.

In view of the facts and circumstances particularly the fact that petitioner's case is not covered under the Resolution of 2006, the court is of the opinion that no positive order can be passed in favour of the petitioner.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U