The High Court dismissed an appeal filed by a former Amin/Muharir challenging a writ court order that refused permanent status. The court held that the advertisement explicitly stated employment was temporary and legitimate expectation could not override this stipulation for a writ of mandamus.
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
Letters Patent Appeal No.544 of 2018 IN
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19207 of 2016
===========================================================
Arjun Mandal S/o Late Ram Prasad Mandal, Resident of Village - Mungroura, Chaurasia Path, P.O. - Jamalpur, P.S. - East Colony, District - Munger, Pin - 811214.
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
=========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Alok Ranjan,Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md. Khurshi Alam - AAG12
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD) Date: 19-06-2018
Challenging the order dated 22.03.2018 passed in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19207 of 2016 by the learned writ Court, the original writ petitioner has moved in this Intra Court appeal.
for engagement as Amin/Muharir as per requirement for up-gradation
Patna High Court LPA No.544 of 2018 dt.19-06-2018
2/3
of the records of divisional survey and other land records in the settlement office. Clause 6 of the advertisement specifically provides that the applicant shall not be entitled to claim permanent employment and they will be discharged on completion of work. The learned writ Court while passing the impugned order observed as under:-
“Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in the nature of relief prayed where these petitioners claim permanent status but the stipulation present in the advertisement itself made it explicit that no such right would accrue, this Court is not persuaded to grant indulgence more particularly in view of the fact that Amins do not come with regular cadre and the issue is being raised after four years of selection.”
Patna High Court LPA No.544 of 2018 dt.19-06-2018
3/3
advertisement itself provides that the petitioner shall not be entitled to claim permanent employment and he will be discharged on completion of work, the claim of the petitioner that he had legitimate expectation to get the permanent status has no basis to stand, moreover, a legitimate expectation alone would not be enough to claim a writ of mandamus from the Court to secure permanent status in service.
(Rajendra Menon, CJ)
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
Arvind/R.R.Ojha AFR/NAFR N/A CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 22.06.2018 Transmission Date
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a petitioner with a legitimate expectation is entitled to permanent status in employment based on laws of natural justice?
Whether a restrictive clause in an advertisement prohibiting permanent employment overrides the petitioner's claim for such status?
Arjun Mandal
The State of Bihar
Rajendra Menon
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
