Patna High CourtMJC/3095/2017disposed

Keertiman Kuamr Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-10-01Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.3095 of 2017 ====================================================== Keertiman Kuamr Singh Son of late Daya Nand Singh, Residence of Village- Bishnupur, P.S.- Mufassil, District- Begusarai .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Sri. R.K. Mahajan, the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. Sri Rajiv Prasad Singh Ranjan, The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar.

4. Sultan Ahmed, The Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar.

5. Md. Naushad Yusuf, The District Magistrate, Begusarai.

6. Sri Dinesh Shafi, the District Education Officer, Begusarai.

7. Sri Shyam Kumar Ram, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Begusarai.

8. Sri Kanchan Kapoor, the Municipal Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Begusarai.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Babu Nandan Prasad For the Respondent/s : Mr.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 01-10-2018 A show cause has been filed in this case bringing on record the minutes of meeting dated 12.07.2018 in which the Establishment Committee has considered the case of this petitioner along with others. It appears that the Establishment Committee has rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the grounds inter-alia the finding recorded by the learned writ Court as to the competence of the petitioner. In the given facts and circumstances, this Court does

Patna High Court MJC No.3095 of 2017 (4) dt.01-10-2018 2/2 not find any reason to take it as a case of willful disobedience on the part of the opposite parties.

This contempt application cannot proceed. It is disposed off, accordingly.

The petitioner will, however, be at liberty to raise his claim if so advised in accordance with law.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) R.R.Ojha/Ved/- U