Disposed¶23

Ramesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC21 Apr 2025CWJC/5884/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWJC No.5884 of 2025; Ramesh Yadav v. State of Bihar and others; Patna High Court; decided 21-04-2025; Class IV appointment; District Magistrate cum District IVth Grade Selection Committee, Saharsa; petitioner placed in panels of 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2018; approved roster reserved category male 2017-18 vacancies filled; memo no. 332 dated 20.02.2019; earlier C.W.J.C. No. 9784 of 2018; panel life one year; writ petition disposed with liberty to establish appointment of juniors ignoring claim.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to show before the authority concerned that any junior person from the panel was appointed ignoring his claim; upon such showing, the respondent authorities to consider his claim and pass necessary order in accordance with law expeditiously. ¶23

Ramesh Yadav Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5884 of 2025

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Ramesh Yadav, Son of Laxmi Yadav, Resident of Village Agwanpur, Ward No.3, P.O Sisai District- Saharsa.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate cum District IVth Grade Selection Committee, Saharsa.

¶8

The Deputy Collector (Nazarat), District Collectorate Saharsa.

¶9

... ... Respondent/s

¶10

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mithilesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Government Pleader (27) ======================================================

¶11

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 21-04-2025 Heard the parties.

¶13

The petitioner is aggrieved with the decision of the respondent no. 2 issued under memo no. 332 dated 20.02.2019

¶14

by which the claim of the petitioner stands rejected by taking into account that as per the approved roster the remaining four vacant post of the year 2017-18, under reserved category post (male), have already been filled up and there is no vacancy available.

¶15

Learned Advocate for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order has submitted that the reason assigned in the impugned order is completely based upon incorrect facts, inasmuch as, till date, still there is 851 available vacancies under

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.5884 of 2025(2) dt.21-04-2025 2/3

¶17

the different offices of the District Saharsa. Moreover, the respondent authorities have failed to consider the facts that the name of the petitioner finds placed in all the panel of the year 2007, 2012, 2014 and 2018; and thus his case has not been considered in the manner, which was required to be done under the law and he has been running from pillar to post.

¶18

Learned Advocate for the State submitted that earlier the petitioner had come before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9784 of 2018 and on permission being granted, the petitioner had preferred a detailed representation; after proper consideration the claim of the petitioner stands rejected by the impugned order. It is further submitted that so far the life of the panel is concerned, the same is meant only for a year and moreover, all the vacant seats have already been filled up, as it appears from the impugned order.

¶19

At this juncture, learned Advocate for the petitioner further submits that as per the instruction of his client; some of the junior persons have also been appointed against Class IV post, ignoring the claim of the petitioner.

¶20

Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties, and after going through the impugned order, this Court does not find any

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.5884 of 2025(2) dt.21-04-2025 3/3

¶22

illegality and impropriety in the order impugned; however if the petitioner would be able to show before the authority concerned that any of the junior persons from the panel has been appointed ignoring the claim of the petitioner, in such circumstances, the respondent authorities would be obliged to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass necessary order in accordance with law expeditiously.

¶23

The writ petition stands disposed off with the liberty aforesaid.

¶24

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶25

supratim/-

¶26

Ramesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Yadav v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhim Shankar Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Jawahar Lal Sharma Vs The State of Bihar

Pappu Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Chandani Kumari Vs The State of Bihar

Ram Babu Rai Vs The State of Bihar

Anil Kumar Pandey Vs The State of Bihar