Shweta Kumari And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5944 of 2015 ===========================================================
1. Shweta Kumari daughter of Sri Maheshwar Sah resident of Mohalla- Barihat, Near Laxmi Mandir P.S.- Khajanchi Hat, District- Purnea.
2. Ravindra Kumar son of Sri Dua Lal Yadav, resident of Village- Radhanagar, P.O. & P.S.- BAnmankhi, District- Purnea.
3. Guria Kumari daughter of Late Satyanarain Sah resident of Near Banmankhi Bus Stand Ward No. 3, P.O. & P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea.
4. Mamta Kumari daughter of Sri Bishwanath Bhagat, resident of MohallaDarzeepatti Ward No. 10, Banmankhi, P.O. & P.S.- Banmankhi, District- Purnea. .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. District Programme Officer, Purnea.
4. Block Development Officer, Banmankhi District- Purnea.
5. Block Education Officer, Banmankhi District- Purnea. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanand Roy For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jawed Gaffar Khan, AC to SC 7 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-07-2015 2008 appointment is sought to be challenged in the year 2014. There are many reasons that the decision of the Tribunal is not required to be interfered. Delay is fatal. Secondly, right have been created in favour of those persons, who have already been appointed. Thirdly, the law has undergone a change with regard to eligibility and requirement of educational kind in the year 2012. Fourth, the submission of the counsel is of no avail. The law is well settled that once the process of appointment is made and completed, the said vacancy cannot be made a ground for continued kind of exercise of
Patna High Court CWJC No.5944 of 2015 dt.03-07-2015 2/2 selection and appointment. Those vacancies will accrue for future and will be governed by the rule in play as and when it is required to be filled up. The other grounds which are stated in the order of the Tribunal are also very weighty.
Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U