Disposed

Hajrat Ansari and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Aug 2012CWJC/10407/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court in a civil writ petition addressed the denial of promotion to two petitioners based on a pending vigilance inquiry. The court directed the Principal Secretary to verify if the petitioners were named in the relevant First Information Report, while the Regional Deputy Director failed to assist adequately. The court ordered a reasoned order within four weeks.

What did the court decide?

Ordered the Principal Secretary to examine if petitioners were named in the Vigilance FIR and pass a reasoned order within four weeks.

Hajrat Ansari and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10407 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Hajrat Ansari S/O Wali Hassan Mian Resident Of Village Rajapur, P.O. Gopalpur, District Gopalganj 2. Gulam Sarbar S/O Tej Mohammad Resident Of Village Jagmalwa, P.S. Thabe, District Gopalganj

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

Versus

¶5

The State Of Bihar

¶6

The Director (Administration)-Cum- Additional Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶7

The Regional Deputy Director, Education, Saran Division At Chapra

¶8

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr Prasad Gp7

¶9

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶10

4 06-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, the State and Shri Yogesh Chandra Singh, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran at Chapra who is present in person.

¶11

On 27.7.2012 it was submitted on behalf of the petitioner that Vigilance P.S. Case No.50/02 had been lodged on 28.6.2012 with regard to the alleged illegal appointees and that his name does not figure in the same. That was the only ground on which consideration for promotion was being denied.

¶12

The counter affidavit of the State referred to the vigilance investigation stating that it had concluded on 25.7.2012 and an F.I.R. had been lodged. The counter affidavit was affirmed on 26.7.2010, but made no disclosure

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.10407 of 2012 (4) dt.06-08-2012

¶14

¶15

with regard to the fact whether the petitioner was a party to the same or not and neither was the First Information Report brought on record. The Court therefore considered it proper to adjourn the matter to enable the Regional Deputy Director of Education to appear and assist the Court why a proper counter affidavit was not filed. He persists in his stand that unless the Vigilance Department does not make a copy of the First Information Report available to him, he is under no obligation to collect materials from the Vigilance Department. It is unfortunate that he remains oblivious of his duties to the Court as a government servant for assisting it in dispensation of justice.

¶16

Though the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, has not been made a party respondent, in the nature and manner of assistance rendered by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the Court is left with no option but to direct the Principal Secretary to himself examine if the petitioners were named in Vigilance P.S. Case No.50/12 lodged on 28.6.2012. Needles to state that if their names figure in the same, the nature of relief sought in the writ application cannot be granted. But, if their names do not figure in the First Information Report, the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee keeping their cases pending subject to the conclusion of the vigilance enquiry is not sustainable and their case for

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.10407 of 2012 (4) dt.06-08-2012

¶18

¶19

promotion is required to be considered in accordance with law.

¶20

Let such consideration be done and a reasoned and speaking order passed by the Principal Secretary within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶21

The application is disposed.

¶22

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶23

K.C.jha/-

Hajrat Ansari and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hajrat Ansari and Anr. 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

Rukmini Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anjani Devi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manoj Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Renu Devi Vs The Vice Chancellor T.m.bhagalpur Univeersity and Ors.

Dr. Raj Kishore Mehra Vs The Magadh University and Ors.

Guneshwar Manjhi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.