Allowed

Bharat Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Jun 2012CWJC/10563/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This oral order set aside impugned orders cancelling the petitioner's appointment. The Court held that the respondents, despite specifying a deadline for issuance of appointment letters, failed to comply. The petitioner was directed to be reinstated in terms similar to a previous related judgment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders set aside; writ application disposed in similar terms with direction for reinstatement.

Bharat Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10563 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Bharat Rai S/O Sri Vishwanath Rai R/O Vill & P.O.-Dumarahar Khurd, P.S.-Darauli, Distt-Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate Siwan 5. The District Education Officer Siwan 6. The District Programme Officer(Establishment) Siwan 7. The Block Development Officer Nautan Block, Siwan 8. The Block Education Officer Nautan, Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bajarangi Lal For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sahi AAG14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 22-06-2012 The petitioner is aggrieved by the orders dated 31.8.2010, 7.9.2010, 20.9.2010 and 22.9.2010 by which his appointment selection has been cancelled. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there are no allegations for any irregularities in the selection process or any ineligibility in the candidature of the petitioner. The respondents had specified a final date for issuance of appointment letters. The respondents themselves faulted in not complying with the order and issuing appointment letters by the specified date. The petitioner’s appointment letter is two days subsequent to the last date specified for issuance of appointment letters. The

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.10563 of 2012 (2) dt.22-06-2012

¶4

¶5

impugned orders do not contain any reference what was the relevance of the cut off date after which appointment letters could not be lawfully issued.

¶6

Considering all aspects of the matter, this Court in C.W.J.C. No.17179/10 on a similar claim and after examining the counter affidavit filed by the respondents allowed the writ application. Similar impugned orders were quashed and directions issued for grant of the appointment letter.

¶7

The only distinction presently from the aforesaid order is that he is required to be reinstated as distinct from those whose letters of appointment were being withheld.

¶8

Learned counsel for the State has not been able to distinguish the case of the petitioner to the satisfaction of the Court from that of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No.17179/10.

¶9

The impugned orders are accordingly set aside and the writ application is disposed in similar terms, with similar directions as C.W.J.C. No.17179/10.

¶10

The application stands disposed.

¶11

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶12

K.C.jha/-

Bharat Rai v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bharat Rai 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Narad Bihari and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Raj Nandan Mandal Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Tufail Ahmad Khan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rahul Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.vinod Kumar Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Md.Ghulam Mustafa Vs T.M.Bhagalpur University and Ors.