Sunil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1267 of 2023 ====================================================== 1.

Sunil Kumar Son of Narendra Kumar Yadav Resident of Ward No. 20, Purani Jail, Saharsa, District-Saharsa.

2.

Aalok Kumar Son of Binod Prasad Yadav Resident of Hardi Purab, Ward No. 10 Chaughara, Police Station and District Supaul. 3.

Darshan Kumar Son of Bhuvan Sah Resident of Village Mahkhar, Ward No. 07 Police Station and District Saharsa.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secreary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat Building, Bailey Road, Patna-800015.

2.

The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

3.

The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Saharsa.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ajay, GA- 5, with Mr. Rakesh Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 19-06-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioners have participated in the process of selection on contract basis for a limited period. The selection of Assistant Technicians was being done by the District Magistrate, Samastipur (respondent No. 2). The result (Annexure- 2) has been published by the District Selection Committee in its meeting dated 17.11.2018.

The three petitioners have not been selected and reasons have been assigned in the remarks column that instead of giving

Patna High Court CWJC No.1267 of 2023(2) dt.19-06-2023 2/2 the original of their technical certificates, they have submitted colour photocopy of the same, at the time of counseling, which was contrary to the directions, dated 17.11.2018, issued by the Panchayati Raj Department, under letter No. 6219. The petitioners do not dispute this infirmity committed by them in the process of selection. They have raised their objection in this regard under communication dated 22.02.2019. Petitioners who have not annexed the advertisement, do not dispute such requirement, as per Panchayati Raj Department, letter dated 17.11.2018.

The selection process was for employment on contract basis for a period which was valid only until March, 2023. The petitioners thus have not been able to make out a case that their rejection on the grounds of the communication dated 17.11.2018, is not in accordance with law.

The writ petition is devoid of merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Raj kishore/- U