Surendra Prasad Yadav And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9505 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Surendra Prasad Yadav and Anr son of Late Mahavir Prasad Yadav resident of village - Maricha, P.O. Bakaur, P.S. Supaul, District - Supaul. 2.

Mohan Kumar Mishra son of Shri Tarakant Mishra Resident of Village - Chandel, P.O. Bakaur, P.S. - Supaul, District - Supaul. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

District Magistrate, Supaul.

3.

District Education Officer, Supaul.

4.

Block Development Officer, Supaul.

5.

Block Education Officer, Supaul.

6.

Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Gopalpur Sire.

7.

Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gopalpur Sire. 8.

Srawan Kumar son of Shri Dinanath Mishra Resident of Village - Chandeli, P.O. Bakour, P.S. Supaul, District - Supaul.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Girjanand Prasad, Adv.

For the State :

Mr.Prabhakar Jha- Gp27 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 23-08-2022

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition in the year 2018 claiming appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. On the basis of an enquiry conducted to the selection process by the District Village Development Abhikaran, Supaul, where it was found that the concerned selection conducted in the year 2003 did not take into consideration the candidates from Backward Class. Making the same as a basis, the petitioners

Patna High Court CWJC No.9505 of 2018(2) dt.23-08-2022 2/2 claims that he should be now considered for appointment.

3. Counter affidavit, has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3, it is stated that there has been a gross delay and laches on the part of the petitioners. The writ petition has been preferred after more than 15 years.

4. In the opinion of this Court, the preliminary objection raised by the respondents deserve to be accepted, after a long delay of 15 years, the selection process cannot be reopened.

5. The writ petition is wholly mis-conceived and accordingly dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 34 U