Dilip Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2785 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12682 of 2008 ====================================================== Dilip Kumar Yadav, Son of Yadunandan Yadav, Resident of villageKhangharpatty, P.S.- Jadiya, District- Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. Mr. D.S. Gangwar, the Principal Secretary, H.R.D., Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. Baijnath Yadav, the District Magistrate, Supaul

4. Mr. Uday Kumar Sharma, the Senior Member, District Teacher Appointment and Appellate Authority, Supaul.

5. The Mukhiya cum Adhyaksha, Primary Teachers Selection Committee, Gram Panchayat- Ghiwha, Chhotapur, P.O.- Ghiwha, District Supaul, through Panchayat Secretary.

6. The Panchayat Secretary cum Member Secretary, Primary Teacher Selection Committee, Gram Panchayat Ghiwha, Chhatapur, P.O.- Ghiwha, District- Supaul .... .... Opposite Parties ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the S t a t e : Ms. Shilpa Singh, G.A.-12 Mr. Ranjan Kumar, AC to G.A.-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER 24-04-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. In pursuance of the order dated 16.04.2018, the District Magistrate, Supaul is present in person and a supplementary show cause has been filed, in which vide Annexure A to the said show cause, it has been clearly indicated that the petitioner's case was ignored and by using unfair practices, names of other candidates had been supported and despite having lower

Patna High Court MJC No.2785 of 2016 (9) dt.24-04-2018 2/2 marks than the petitioner, their case for appointment was considered, but the case of the petitioner remains undecided till date by the appellate authority.

In view of Annexure A filed by the District Magistrate, no further case for contempt is made out. The M.J.C. application, accordingly, stands disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to raise his claim before the appellate authority in the light of Annexure A, which has been produced before this Court.

It would be advisable and in the interest of justice that the appellate authority shall not delay any further and will also dispose of the petitioner's case within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Anjana Mishra, J) PNM U