Dismissed

Krishan Murari Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC12 Dec 2012MJC/1790/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a miscellaneous jurisdiction case, the Patna High Court dismissed a petition challenging the report of a Select Committee inquiry into selection forgery. The Court held that the inquiry suggested by the petitioner was not possible within the present jurisdiction; the remedy for a fresh application lies in a new writ. The application was dismissed.

What did the court decide?

No details of specific relief granted. The miscellaneous application was dismissed.

Krishan Murari Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1790 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Krishan Murari Kumar S/O Late Saudi Singh R/O Vill+P.O.-Khanwan, P.S.-Narhat, Distt-Nawadah

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Sri Navin Kumar Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 2. Mr. Deepak Kumar, The Principal Secretary, General Administrative (Personnel & Administrative Reforms ) Department Government Of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna 3. The Bihar Public Service Commission Through Its Chairman Sri K.C.Sinha 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna 4. Mr.K.C. Saha The Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna 5. Mr. Sharat Chandra Jha, The Secretary, Bihar Public Service Commission 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna 6. Mr. A. Singh, Controller Of Examination , Bihar Public Service Commission 15, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Patna

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s

¶6

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.N. Sahi Aag14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶7

4 12-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, Bihar Staff Selection Commission and the State.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner fairly

¶9

acknowledges that pursuant to the order dated 15.9.2010 in Civil Review No.3/09 Shri R.J.M. Pillai has submitted his report. The report states that there were no forgery in the selection. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to

¶10

dispute the same contending that it was contrary to certain information furnished to the petitioner earlier under the R.T.I. Act which confirmed that certain appointments were

¶11

Patna High Court MJC No.1790 of 2012 (4) dt.12-12-2012

¶12

¶13

forged.

¶14

He next submits that subsequently persons whose appointments may have met the approval of Shri Pillai have been removed from service on the ground that their appointments were forged.

¶15

The enquiry of the nature suggested and required by the petitioner is not possible in the present jurisdiction. If he is aggrieved by the report of Shri Pillai and is of the opinion that it is factually incorrect, based on any materials that he may be possessed of, the remedy lies in a fresh writ application.

¶16

The application is dismissed.

¶17

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶18

K.C.jha/-

Krishan Murari Kumar v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Krishan Murari Kumar 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

Md.akram and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Devendra Prasad and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anant Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Gita Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Subh Narayan Tiwary and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shesh Kr. Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.