IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.12209 of 2010
PAWAN KUMAR MEHTA S/O LATE AMBIKA PRASAD MEHTA
R/O LAKSHMIPUR, P.O. & P.S.- BIHARIGANJ, DISTT.-
MADHEPURA
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY
PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, VIKASH BHAWAN, BAILEY ROAD,
PATNA
2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, MADHEPURA, BIHAR.
3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, KOSHI
DIVISION, SAHARSA
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, MADHEPURA
5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION,
MADHEPURA
-----------
03. 03.12.2010 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
The reason for the petitioner to file the writ application is
because by a common recommendation the District Compassionate
Appointment Committee had made for appointment of all those
candidates, whose case was considered under the compassionate
appointment head. Name of the petitioner has also figured in that list,
which is evident from Annexure-2. However, when the matter came
down finally for appointment, four persons came to be appointed on
Class-III post. Petitioner was directed to approach the authorities for his
accommodation as a Panchayat Teacher on the ground that no vacancies
are available for the respondents to offer.
Counsel for the petitioner has very categorically asserted in
para 8 of the writ application with regard to availability of the post,
based on information he has obtained. This fact has not been
controverted in the counter affidavit, which has been filed on behalf
2
of the respondents. Obviously, respondents have something to hide or
they do not want to speak truth with regard to such assertions.
In view of the same the writ application is disposed of with
direction upon respondent No3, Regional Deputy Director of
Education, Koshi Division, Saharsa, to consider the claim of the
petitioner afresh and pass necessary orders within a period of three
months from the date of communication / production of a copy of this
order with a rider that if what has been stated in paragraph No.8 of the
writ application is correct, then consequential order will flow in favour
of the petitioner.
The writ application is disposed of with above direction.
rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)