This court disposed of a writ petition challenging appointment based on qualifications. The court noted non-joinder of the other appointee and lack of appointment date, recommending expedient consideration of a representation while ensuring due process.
The application was disposed; directions issued to consider the representation expeditiously.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2327 of 2010 MADAN KUMAR GUPTA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
02 16.08.2010
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner
and learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner claims to be appointed on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery on a subsequent acceptance of the qualifications of Madhyama to Matriculate for appointment. The petitioner at Annexure-3, in his representation acknowledges that the person at serial no.5 of the panel has been appointed. The person appointed has not been made party respondent. The writ petition suffers from serious non-joinder of parties. There is no statement of the date on which this appointment has been made. If, it has been made prior to 31.7.2008, it can not be faulted with on the present count alone. The Legislative Amendment of the Rules is not retrospective. No executive instruction can give retrospective effect to statutory rules.
If the petitioner files a representation let the same be considered expeditiously in light of the aforesaid discussion and that no order to the prejudice of any person can be passed without
hearing him i.e. the other person appointed from serial 5 of the panel.
The application stand disposed.
P.K.
(Navin Sinha, J.)
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ petition regarding appointment based on qualifications faces defect of non-joinder of parties and lack of date of appointment.
Whether the petitioner is entitled to dispose of the matter via representation without notice to the person already appointed.
Madan Kumar Gupta
The State of Bihar
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
