Vijay Kumar Singh vs State Of Bihar & Ors

The writ petition preferred by the appellant has been disposed of as having become infructuous by the order impugned dated 12.12.2017.

The appellant had approached this Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 324 of 2017 seeking a direction to the respondent/Principal, Industrial Training Institute,

Digha Ghat, Patna to allow him to take charge and work as N.C.C. Officer in the I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna and for inquiring into the irregularity,

bungling and fraud committed by his predecessor/respondent No. 9, during the period that he officiated as N.C.C. Officer, I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna

while simultaneously discharging his functions at I.T.I., Bettiah.

It appears that the petitioner was appointed as an Instructor Wireman in the year 1998 in I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna and from 10.07.2000, he had

been functioning as a Caretaker N.C.C. Officer, under the direction of the respondent/Principal. Later, he formally joined N.C.C. Cadre and received

training at Nagpur. Thenceforth, he continued to work as N.C.C. Officer at I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna.

 4. The appellant was, thereafter, transferred to I.T.I., Munger in the year 2005, where also he discharged the duties of N.C.C. Officer. From

Munger, he was transferred to I.T.I., Muzaffarpur in the year 2012, where also he worked as N.C.C. Officer. During this period, respondent No. 9 is

stated to have been transferred to Patna and he started officiating as N.C.C. Officer. The respondent No. 9 was thereafter transferred to I.T.I.,

Bettiah, but continued to discharge his duties as N.C.C. Officer at I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna. Despite respondent No. 9 having been asked by the

Principal of I.T.I., Patna to handover the charge of the N.C.C. Office to somebody else, he did not handover the charge and continued to discharge

his functions.

The trouble began when the appellant as well as respondent No. 9, both, were promoted to the post of Chief Instructor and both of them were

transferred to I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna and were placed at seniority Nos. 1080 and 1084, respectively.

Because of respondent No. 9 discharging his functions as N.C.C. Officer at I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna, he was allowed to continue to work as

N.C.C. Officer at Patna after his transfer from Bettiah.

The counter affidavit on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 to 4 discloses that no other N.C.C. Officer was appointed by the Directorate of N.C.C.,

Bihar, Patna and, therefore, respondent No. 9 was allowed to function as N.C.C. Officer at the I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna.

Taking into account the aforesaid stand of the respondents, the learned Single Judge vide his order dated 12.12.2017 disposed of the writ petition of

the appellant as having become infructuous.

Respondent No. 9 has been officiating as N.C.C. Officer at I.T.I., Digha Ghat, Patna under the direction of the Directorate.

With the transfer of both, the respondent No. 9 and the appellant to Patna, the grievance of the appellant that respondent No. 9 has been

officiating as N.C.C. Officer at Patna while simultaneously working at Bettiah, does not seem to exist today.

Thus, no interference now is required with the order passed by the learned Single Judge.

The present Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.