Patna High CourtCWJC/11696/2008dismissed

Renu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-08-20Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11696 of 2008 ====================================================== Renu Kumari wife of late Manoj Kumar resident of village Tetri P.S. Naugachiya, District Bhagalpur.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.

3. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Naugachiya, Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlendu Mishra For the Respondent/s : AC to Addl. Advocate General - 8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 2.

20-08-2015 Heard Sri Bimlendu Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General - 8. The petitioner, invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has prayed for directing the respondents to appoint her on the post of Peon, in view of direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 504 of 1994 (Annexure - 5 to the writ petition). By the said order, which was passed on 31-01-1995, a Bench of this Court had directed the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition. It was indicated therein that if post of Peon is advertised, it will be open to the petitioner to apply for the same and if otherwise, petitioner was found eligible, direction was given to give relaxation of age. The said order was passed in the month of January, 1995 and the present writ petition has been filed in the year 2008 on the ground that the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.11696 of 2008 (2) dt.20-08-2015 2/2 came to know that some appointments were made in 2008 ignoring the case of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for being empanelled in the year 1995 itself. In normal course, life of panel of such appointment expires after one year, whereas, the writ petition was filed in the year 2008. I do not find any ground to grant any relief to the petitioner.

The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U