Petitioner, deputed from an electronics corporation, sought quashing of an order returning his services. The court held the grievance is baseless as no right to remain in the department exists, dismissing the writ.
Writ application dismissed for being devoid of substance.
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 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9995 of 2018
======================================================
Sujeet Kumar, Son of Shri Ashok Prasad, Resident of Village- Lohrajpur, Police Station- Katrisarai, District- Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr.Ram Sagar Singh, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr.Gyan Prakash Ojha, GA7 Mr.Yash Mathur, AC to GA7 Mr.Naresh Dixit, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER
2 05-09-2022 By way of the instant writ application the petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 12.04.2018 (Annexure-1) issued by the Under Secretary to the Government of Bihar in the Mines and Mineral Department.
It is apparent from the averments in the writ petition as well as the annexures that the petitioner was not an employee of the Mines and Mineral Department. In fact Bihar State Electronics Development Corporation Limited (Corporation for short) had deputed the petitioner in the Mines and Mineral Department as a Computer Operator/Data Entry Operator. Bare perusal of Annexure-1 shows that by the same the petitioner’s
Patna High Court CWJC No.9995 of 2018(2) dt.05-09-2022 2/2
services have been returned to the Corporation by the impugned communication dated 12.04.2018. From these facts, which is apparent from the records, this Court finds that the prayer of the petitioner for quashing of the impugned communication dated 12.04.2018 is not based on any subsisting right to continue to work in the Mines and Mineral Department, which can be enforced by way of a writ proceedings. The petitioner’s services have merely been returned to the agency which had deputed the petitioner’s services to the Mines and Mineral Department. Therefore, grievance regarding returning of petitioner’s services is baseless, much less assailable by the petitioner by way of writ proceedings.
Writ application is devoid of substance and dismissed.
(Madhuresh Prasad, J)
shashank/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ can lie to quash a communication returning deputed petitioner's services to the deploying corporation.
Whether the petitioner has a subsisting right to continue service in the department enforceable by writ.
Sujeet Kumar
The State Of Bihar
Madhuresh Prasad
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
