Patna High CourtCWJC/8361/2014dismissed

Ram Balak Paswan v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-05Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

Patna High Court CWJC No.8361 of 2014 (2) dt.05-09-2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8361 of 2014 ====================================================== Ram Balak Paswan, son of late Brahamdeo Paswan, resident of village Kapsimawan, P.S. and Sub-division Hilsa, District Nalanda at Bihar Sharif .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate Nalanda at Bihar Sharif

3. The Deputy Collector, Establishment, Nalanda Collectorate at Bihar Sharif

4. The Deputy Collector Nazarat, District Nalanda at Bihar Sharif

5. The Sub-divisional Officer, Hilsa, District Nalanda at Bihar Sharif

6. Suresh Chaudhary, son of Munsi Chaudhary, resident of village Karaiparsurai Hilsa, District Nalanda at present posted on the post of Peon in the office of Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Nalanda .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 05-09-2016 Expectation of the petitioner is over placed, if not misplaced. There was a panel created in the year 1997 for appointment in the District Collectorate, Nalanda. Criminal case was filed against him. That was the reason to remove him in the year 2001. Now he is exonerated. He wants his place to be restored. Much water has fallen down the Ganges since then. The petitioner can only rue his fate. He can not be placed back on the panel when decisions have been taken and the appointments made, if any, more than a decade and half ago. Such issues cannot be allowed to be reopened because the petitioner has been acquitted now in the criminal case.

Patna High Court CWJC No.8361 of 2014 (2) dt.05-09-2016 Petitioner pleads discrimination because his junior has been appointed. If the junior was not under any cloud or facing any kind of criminal case at the relevant time, obviously he had to be appointed and the authorities were not obliged to wait all these years.

Writ is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Surendra/- U