Patna Court December 1992 Judgments
Khursheed Alam Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-23-1992
Bisheshwar Prasad Singh, J. 1. The petitioner herein is aggrieved by the order dated 16-5-1991 (An-nexure 1) whereby the Chief Engineer. Rural Engineering Organisation (R.E.O. for short), respondent No. 5 herein, has directed the Superintending Engineer, R.E.O. (respondent No. 6) to divide the work between the petitioner and Quasim Raza (respondent No. 8 herein). According to the petitioner, the aforesaid order is illegal, since he was allotted the work after inviting tenders and the order (Annexure 1) has been passed under political influence. He has, therefore, prayed that Annexure 1 be quashed and respondent No. 7 be restrained from acting in accordance therewith. 2. The facts of this case will disclose the manner in which the governmental work of a routine nature is interfered with by politicians who bring all sorts of pressure on the officers of the government to act in a particular manner so as to confer favour on the person/persons in whom they are interested. The practice has...
Tag this Judgment!Dr. Anil Kumar Vs. State of Bihar and ors.
Court: Patna
Decided on: Dec-21-1992
Gurusharan Sharma, J. 1. Thepetitioner appeared in the post-Graduate Medical Admission Test, 1987, for admission into post-Graduate degree/ diploma course of the different Medical College of the State of Bihar. The petitioner fulfilled the requisite qualifications for appearing at the said competitive test. The result of the test was published on 9-4-1983 on the notice board of Patna Medical College and subsequently on 10-4-1988 in 'The Times of India', anEnglish daily. The petitioner did not find his Roll Number in the merit list. The petitioner expected at least 75% marks, whereas the persons securing 71 % marks were found in the merit list. The answer sheets were evaluated by the Computer. Sometimes the Computer produces erratic results, and, as such, the petitioner requested for revaluation of his answer sheet, but in spite of assurance revaluation was not done. The petitioner, therefore, having no efficacious remedy left, invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226...
Tag this Judgment!- ‹ Prev
- Next ›