AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
In this case the petitioner is challenging the appointment of
respondent no.6 as Flag Agent / Contractor for the purpose of
distribution of railway ticket at the Sonma-Pranpur Flag Railway
Station.
Firstly, a grievance has been raised that before selection, the
Railway has not issued an advertisement in the local newspaper nor
have local circulation. Secondly, the person, who has been appointed,
is not from the same block. Thirdly, it has further been said that he
has not submitted any document to show that he was the resident of
that area. Fourthly, it has been submitted that the advertisement
suffers from illegality as it is contrary to the circular dated 24.6.2005.
It is a fact that the advertisement was published in the daily
newspaper in "Hindustan" and "Dainik Jagran" but, the petitioner
could not apply for appointment as a Contractor. The claim of the
petitioner that the person should be of the same block placing reliance
on the circular dated 24.6.2005 is applicable only for the purpose of
appointment of Contractor to the Halt Station but, that is not
applicable to the Flag Station. It is admittedly in the advertisement
which prescribes that the person is of same district, there is no dispute
that he is not the resident of the district of Begusarai. When the
petitioner has failed to apply for selection as a Contractor, now after
more than one year, that too after selection of the respondent no.6, the
writ application is not maintainable. The petitioner has not produced
any material to show that the advertisement, which was published in
the daily newspaper, was not circulated in the district of Begusarai.
With the aforementioned observation, this writ application
is dismissed.