Patna High CourtCWJC/19063/2016dismissed

Siyaram Paswan @ Shanichar Paswan And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-12-17Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19063 of 2016 ======================================================

1. Siyaram Paswan @ Shanichar Paswan son of Late Yogendra Paswan, Resident of Village- Pathor, P.S. Ashok Paper Mill, District- Darbhanga.

2. Md. Samre Alam, son of Md. Kashim, Resident of Village- + Post- Jamalpur, District- Darbhanga.

3. Md. Ishlam, Son fo Md. Fajle Karim, Resident of VillageBasatpur, Post- Ughra, P.S. Bahadurpur, District- Darbhanga.

4. Ramlal Paswan, Son of Yogendra Paswan, Resident of VillageBasatpur, Post.- Ughra, District- Darbhanga.

5. Madan Mahto, son of Late Nathuni Mahto, Resident of VillageVajitpur, Post- Vajitpur, District- Darbhanga. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Deapartment Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

3. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.

4. The District Programme Officer, Darbhanga.

5. The Director, Bihar Education Project, Darbhanga. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioners :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Verma, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. Priyadarshi M.Sharan, AC to AAG15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 17-12-2018 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the respondent State.

It is submitted that the petitioners were working on contract basis as Class IV employees in Kasturba Gandhi Residential Schools, in different blocks at Darbhanga. Counsel for the petitioners submits that advertisement has been issued afresh for engaging contractual employees in place of the petitioners.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19063 of 2016(3) dt.17-12-2018 2/2 There is no averment that there is any bar against the petitioners' candidature in the selection process, which is being drone afresh as alleged. The petitioners would be, therefore, at liberty to participate in the selection for engagement as contractual employees and would be entitled to be considered in the process upon their own merit.

There is no occasion for this Court to issue any direction.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) SNkumar/- U