Patna High CourtL.P.A/1746/2016dismissed

Madhukar Bharti v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-12-08Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1746 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2130 of 2013 ====================================================== Madhukar Bharti, Son of Shri Shyamanand Mandal, Resident of Village Dholbajja P.O. Dhobajja, P.S. Forbesganj, District- Araria. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Araria.

4. The District Superintendent of Education-now District Programme Officer, Establishment, District- Araria.

5. The Block Development Officer, Kursakanta, District- Araria.

6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kursakanta, District- Araria.

7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Jagir Parasi, BlockKursakanta, District- Araria.

8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Jagir Parasi, Block Kursakanta, DistrictAraria.

9. The Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, DistrictAraria.

10. Shravan Kumar Mandal, Son of Sanichar Mandal, Resident of Village & P.O. Ghatchikni, P.S. Kursakanta, District- Araria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Ashok Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, AC to GP 21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) 08-12-2017 No satisfactory reason has been assigned in the condonation application, which is I.A.No.7136 of 2016. There is delay of 9 months and 25 days. A generality of statement has been made that due to unavoidable situation, due to illness and financial crisis delay has been caused. The limitation petition is

Patna High Court LPA No.1746 of 2016(4) dt.08-12-2017 2/2 dismissed. As a consequence thereof, even the appeal is dismissed. Since we have examined correctness or otherwise of the decision rendered by the learned Single Judge dated 08.10.2015, there is nothing significant emerging, which requires rectification or interference.

The limitation petition as well as the appeal is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) ( Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) sk U