Patna High Court
Lalan Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 13 December, 2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17526 of 2017
======================================================
Lalan Kumar Son of Sri Mahanti Yadav, Resident of Village Post Office-
Malhanma, Police Station- Triveniganj, District- Supaul.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar and Ors
2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government
of Bihar, Old Secretariat, P
3. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Supaul.
4. The District Magistrate, Supaul.
5. The Deputy Collector Establishment, Supaul.
6. The Sub- Divisional Officer, Triveniganj, Supaul.
7. The District Selection Committee through its Chairman-cum- District
Magistrate, Supaul.
8. The District Malaria Officer, Supaul.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeet Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.N.H.Khan, SC 1
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 13-12-2021
In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
"1. That the present writ application is being filed for
direction upon the concerned respondent particularly
Respondent No. 7 to correct the panel prepared for
appointment against group D posts in the Supaul district,
prepared in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 01/2012 and
01/2014, by placing the petitioner in Annexure-D instead of
current placement in Annexure-F. The District Selection
Committee, Supaul has approved the panel for appointment in
group D posts in Supaul district and the names of candidate
has been mentioned in six different annexures having district
criteria.
Patna High Court CWJC No.17526 of 2017 dt.13-12-2021
The petitioner has been placed in Annexure-F
which contains such candidates who were appointed, by head
of the office/competent officer, on daily wages against un-
sanctioned post and also having rendered work less than 240
days in a year. The petitioner admittedly has worked more
than 240 days in a year; therefore placement of petitioner in
Annexure-F is palpably wrong and against the finding of the
authority itself.
2. That it is further prayed for a direction upon the
concerned respondent/s, that after correcting the aforesaid
panel prepared by District Selection Committee, Supaul, to
appoint the petitioner on group D post in the Supaul district
since candidates below the petitioner has already been
appointed and for any other relief/reliefs to which this Hon'ble
Court may find fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of
the present case."
Short question for consideration in the present petition is
whether enlisting the petitioner's name in the Annexure-F list on
the score that he has not completed 240 days is in order or not?
Petitioner has furnished Annexure P1 reads as under:
"dk;kZy; ftyk eysfj;k inkf/kdkjh] lqikSy
Kkikad 36] lqikSy fnukad 10-04-2012
izekf.kr fd;k tkrk fd yyu dqekj firk Jh egaFkh ;kno xzke
eyguek iks0 eyguek Fkkuk f=os.khxat ftyk lqikSy us Mh-Mh-Vh- fNM+dko
dk;Z esa nSfud etnwj ds :i esa Js'B {ks=h; dk;ZdrkZ ds in ij 2009 esa 17
fnu] 2011 esa 53 fnu] 2011 esa 24 fnu esa dqy 94 fnu rd dk;Z lEiknu
fd;s gSA budk dk;Z larks'kizn jgk A
[email protected]&vLi'V
ftyk eysfj;k inkf/kdkjh
lqikSy"
The aforesaid document has not been disputed by the
respondent, therefore, one has to draw inference that there is no
infirmity in the aforesaid document that the petitioner has rendered
Patna High Court CWJC No.17526 of 2017 dt.13-12-2021
240 days of service. In the result, having regard to the fact that the
petitioner has completed 240 days of service, he is entitled to be
listed his name in the Annexure D list instead of Annexure F.
Further, learned counsel for the petitioner and State
respondent submitted that the present matter is squarely covered
by C.W.J.C. No. 16066 of 2017. Thus in the facts and
circumstance of the case, petitioner has made out a case.
Accordingly, the concerned respondent is hereby
directed to enlist the petitioner's name in the list of 'D' while
deleting from the 'F' list and the consequential benefit shall be
extended to the petitioner on par with persons whose names are
entitled in 'D' list.
The above exercise shall be completed within a period
of three weeks from the date of receipt of this order.
With the above observation, writ petition is disposed off.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 17.12.2021
Transmission Date NA
