Nirupma Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.141 of 2017 ===========================================================

1. Nirupma Devi, Wife of Awadhesh Kumar Thakur, resident of West of C.K.M. Law College, Ward No. 10, P.S. Araria, District- Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, State of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Commissioner, Purnea Division, Purnea.

3. The District Magistrate, Araria.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, Adv. Mr. Krishna Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. Md.Nashrul Hoda Khan, SC1 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 03-04-2017 Heard Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. N.H. Hoda S.C.1 for the State. The petitioner while praying for appropriate direction in the nature of madamus to the District Magistrate, Araria to appoint the petitioner who claims that her name is present in the panel prepared as back as in 1993 following the advertisement published bearing No. 2 of 1991, submits that over the period of years and until 2015, the appointments have been made from the said panel albeit under the orders of this Court. A supplementary affidavit has been filed stating thus and in which it is also stated that petitioner had earlier moved in C.W.J.C.No.8063 of 2010 but the writ petition was dismissed for default and the counsel concerned did not take

Patna High Court CWJC No.141 of 2017 dt.03-04-2017 2/2 sufficient steps for its restoration, hence this writ petition. Mr. Subodh Kumar Jha learned counsel for the petitioner has prayed for disposal of the representation filed by the petitioner before the District Magistrate Araria, a copy of which is placed at Annexures-5 and 6 to the writ petition.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and if what Mr. Jha learned counsel for the petitioner submits, is found to be correct and that from the same panel which was prepared in 1992-93, appointments have followed as recently as 2015 as claimed by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit and in case the name of the petitioner does figure in the panel, then the District Magistrate, Araria may accordingly consider her case and dispose it of in accordance with law by a speaking order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (Jyoti Saran, J) Bibhash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 12.04.2017 Transmission Date NA