Patna High CourtC. REV./222/2018allowed

Sanjay Kumar Srivastava @ Sanjay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-09-12Mr. Justice Madhuresh Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No 222 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 20429 of 2013 ====================================================== Sanjay Kumar Srivastava @ Sanjay Kumar Son of Late Surendra Kumar Srivastava, resident of Village- Koithwali, P.S. Mairwan in the District Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Co-Operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary Co-Operative Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gopalganj through its Chairman.

4. The District Magistrate-cum- Chairman, District Compassionate Appointment Committee, Gopalganj.

5. The District Co-Operative Officer, Gopalganj.

6. The Assistant Registrar, Co-operative, Gopalganj. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : M/s Gajendra Kr Jha, Sushil Kr Jha, Santosh Kr Jha, Advocates For the Respondent/s : Mr Ramashray Roy, AC to AAG XI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-09-2018 It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that in light of the statement made in paragraph 5 of the writ petition mentioning petitioner's date of birth as 15.01.1973, the petiioner could not have been considered to be a minor on 25.02.1992, that is the date on which he has made his application for compassionate appointment. It is submitted that the finding of this Court recorded in the order dated 20.06.2018 passed in the writ petition that he was still a minor on the date of his application

Patna High Court C. REV. No.222 of 2018 (4) dt.12-09-2018 2/2 being 25.02.1992 is an error apparent on the face of the record, in view of the specific assertion regarding the petitioner's date of birth being 15.01.1973, as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the writ petition. The said submission is not disputed by the learned counsel for the respondents.

In view of the aforesaid error apparent on the face of the record, this application is allowed.

The review petition being allowed, the writ petition requires reconsideration in light of the order passed today. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- U