IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6400 of 2006 JAGNARAYAN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 3 08.08.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. Petitioner was terminated from service by the respondent Bank vide order dated 07.06.1984. He decided to challenge the order by way of filing writ application namely, C.W.J.C. No. 7372/2003. The Court refrained from passing any order in the matter but granted liberty to the petitioner to pursue his representation before the Managing Director. He even, filed a contempt application for non-compliance of the said order which was M.J.C. 1408/2004. The contempt application was dismissed vide order dated 13.04.2005 as being misplaced. The petitioner is back again before this Court pleading discrimination by the respondents in matters of re-employment or engagement. Petitioner’s grievance is that at least two other persons who are similarly removed have been taken back in service vide order dated 03.08.2002, whereas his claim has been ignored. It seems the issue of re-engagement or employment of the petitioner had even traveled to the Deputy Registrar, Co- 2 operative Societies, Government of Bihar. The Managing Director of the Bank categorically informed the Registrar of the state of affairs and the reasons for re-engagement of at least two other persons as also reason for not extended benefit to the petitioner. The clear cut distinction has been made out based on the conduct of the petitioner and his activity. If it all has emerged after deliberations there is no discrimination vis-à-vis the petitioner. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents they have stated the facts and the materials under which the decision in question has come to be taken. They have categorically stated that the petitioner has not made out any case. It is his mere assertion, it does not state the true state of affairs. The court does not find any cogent reason to entertain the writ application and the prayer of the petitioner for reinstatement. The writ application stands dismissed. Rajeev/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)