0

Petitioner is not entitled to writ of Mandamus in the absence of legal/statutory right: Patna High Court

Petitioner is not entitled to writ of Mandamus in the absence of demonstrating legal/statutory right followed by demand before the authorised authority as stated in Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR in the case of DR. Nishanta Bharati Vs. The State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.638 of 2022)

Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner has requested the issuance of appropriate Writs, Orders, and Directions commanding the Respondents to select the Petitioner for appointment as a General Medical Officer against advertisement No. 16/2019 issued by the Bihar Technical Service Commission on 08/08/2019 on the requisition of the General Administration Department, Govt. of Bihar, vide Letter No. 10725 dated 05/08/2019, whereby the Petitioner was not selected for appointment only because five marks were not credited to his total one-year work experience in a central government hospital, as stated in the advertisement, which is illegal, arbitrary, and clearly in violation of the provisions of the said advertisement. Petitioner has asked for the issuance of appropriate Writs, Orders, and Directions asking the Respondents to appoint the Petitioner, providing him with service and all consequential monetary benefits from the date he became eligible for such appointment, and maintaining his seniority from that date.

In light of the Apex Court ruling in the matter of Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486, petitioner is not entitled to writ of Mandamus in the absence of demonstrating legal/statutory right followed by demand before the authorised authority. The writ petition has been dismissed, and the current order will not prevent anyone from submitting a comprehensive submission to the competent authorities within eight weeks of receiving this order. Court directed the appropriate authority to investigate the petitioner’s complaint as soon as possible.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat