Rajanandan Singh, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3874 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10355 of 2018 ====================================================== Rajanandan Singh, Son of Late Deo Singh, Resident of Village-18, Club Road, P.S.-Aurangabad, District- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Sri Amar Subhani, the Principal Secretary, General Administration, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

Sri Beyas, the Secretary Board of Revenue, Bihar, Patna. 3.

R.K. Khanwal, the Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 4.

Sri Rahul Ranjan Mahiwal, the District Magistrate, Aurangabad. 5.

Ishwer Chand Thakur, the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, Aurangabad, Bihar.

6.

The Executive Engineer, Building Division, Aurangabad. 7.

The Rural Engineering Organization, Works Division, Aurangabad. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Ms. Leelawati Kumari, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Manish Kumar (Gp 4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL ORDER 16-04-2025 This contempt petition has been filed alleging violation of order dated 25.10.2018 passed in CWJC No. 10355 of 2018, wherein, this Court has passed the following order:- "Let the petitioner file a detailed representation before the District Magistrate, Aurangabad along with a copy of this order. If such a representation is filed, the District Magistrate, Aurangabad, would decide the same and pass appropriate order within a period of four weeks from the date of filing of representation by the petitioner."

2. Opposite party No. 4 has filed a show cause,

Patna High Court MJC No.3874 of 2019(3) dt.16-04-2025 2/2 wherein, in paragraph No. 8 it has been stated as under:- "8. That it is humbly submitted that in view of the Hon'ble Court's observation dated 25.10.2018, both the parties were heard and relevant records were perused painstakingly. It is relevant to mention here that an advertisement was published in the year 2009 (advertisement No.01/2009) for the appointment Class-IV posts against which more than ten thousand applications were received. The candidates who had worked prior to 2009 (before the advertisement published) were recommended for appointment, meaning thereby that the basis of appointment was to work prior to 2009. So far as the petitioner is concerned, till 2009 he had not worked at all in any office rather he had worked in the year 2014. As per the letter No.

1594/election dated 30.10.2019 of Deputy Election Officer, Aurangabad, it appears that petitioner had worked for 5 days in 2014 for which remuneration as per standard was paid to him. Accordingly the petitioner is directed to file his application if any vacancy falls in future."

3. On perusal of paragraph No. 8 of the show cause filed by the opposite party No. 4, I find that the order dated dated 25.10.2018 passed in CWJC No. 10355 of 2018 has been complied with by the respondents.

4. In view of the above, this contempt application stands closed and disposed of.

(Nani Tagia, J) Siddharth Sagar/- U