Allowed

Bidyanand Thakur v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Aug 2011CWJC/17711/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition contesting seniority. Finding the petitioner joined earlier than Respondent No. 4 based on documentary evidence and the absence of rebuttal from official respondents, the court set aside the impugned order and held the petitioner to be senior.

What did the court decide?

The impugned order dated 25.11.2009 was set aside and the petitioner was held to be senior to Respondent No. 4.

Bidyanand Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17711 of 2009

¶3

Bidyanand Thakur Versus

¶4

The State Of Bihar & Ors

¶5

¶6

23.08.2011

¶7

Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned

¶8

Counsel for the State.

¶9

A counter affidavit is stated to have been filed on behalf of the official respondents after serving copy on the Counsel for the petitioner on 12.3.2010. Let the office trace the original and place it on record. Let the Xerox copy of the same produced by the Counsel for the State be kept on record.

¶10

No one appears on behalf of Respondent no. 4 despite having entered appearance.

¶11

The petitioner came to this Court in CWJC No. 12846 of 2009 in a contest for seniority over respondent no. 4.The Court disposed the writ application with a direction to decide the issue of seniority by a reasoned and speaking order.

¶12

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of joining of the petitioner is 21.4.2005 while that of respondent no. 4 is 13.7.2005. The impugned order dated 25.11.2009 talks of seniority based on provisional gradation list. The petitioner has successfully demonstrated on the face of record that the petitioner is senior which neither the impugned order nor the counter affidavit demolishes.

¶13

Counsel for the State from the impugned order submits that the petitioner was appointed under the 45^th Combined Competitive Examination while respondent no. 4 was appointed in pursuance of 44^th .

¶14

The grounds urged on behalf of the respondent may raise a presumption of seniority of respondent no. 4. The presumption may be

¶15

rebuttable. The petitioner has demonstrated from the official documents that the petitioner joined earlier than respondent no. 4. The impugned order only refers to the 45^th /44^th Combined Entrance Examination. It does not discuss the dates of joining to determine seniority. The counter affidavit filed is hardly helpful in adjudication and reiterates only the impugned order without making any further disclosure.

¶16

In absence of the official respondents or the private respondent rebutting the contention of the petitioner that he had joined prior to respondent no. 4, the Court is left with no option but to set aside the impugned order dated 25.11.2009 and holds on basis of materials presently to record that the petitioner is senior to respondent no. 4.

¶17

The writ application is allowed.

¶18

Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)

Bidyanand Thakur v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bidyanand Thakur v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Deo Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Arun Kumar Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Binda Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Deo Narain Chaudhary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Murari Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bir Bhajan Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.