Patna High CourtL.P.A/1865/2015dismissed

Anil Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-02-21Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh,Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1865 of 2015 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2243 of 2015 =========================================================== Anil Kumar Singh, Son of Sant Prasad Singh, Resident of Village - Mukundpur, P.S. - Jandaha, District - Vaishali at Hajipur. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Vaishali at Hajipur.

3. D.E.O., Vaishali, Hajipur.

4. D.P.O. (Literacy), Vaishali.

5. B.E.O. Block Jandaha, Vaishali.

6. Block Programme Co-ordinator, Jandaha, Vaishali.

7. Headmaster Cum Nodel in Charge, Lok Siksha Samittee, Govt. Middle School, Hahesi Saidpur Block Jandaha, Vaishali.

8. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Bahsi Saidpur, Jandaha, Vaishali. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Dr. Om Prakash Om, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anil Kr Uapdhyay, SC-2 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ) Date: 21-02-2017 The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench on 5.2.2015 in C.W.J.C. No. 2243 of 2015 wherein, the writ application filed by the appellant to seek appointment after his resignation to the same post was dismissed. Learned Single Bench has rightly found that after submitting the resignation, the appellant does not get a right for appointment against an available vacant post. It is also found that the

Patna High Court LPA No.1865 of 2015 dt.21-02-2017 2/2 appointment of the appellant was on contract and after resigning no cause of action will arise.

We do not find any error in the order passed by the learned Single Bench which may warrant interference in the present contempt petition. The same is dismissed.

It may be noticed that earlier the limitation was condoned in the absence of the appellant. Today again none has put in appearance on behalf of the appellant.

(Hemant Gupta, ACJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) K.C.jha/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 01.03.2017 Transmission Date N/A