Md. Reyazuddin And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 7347 of 2015 ====================================================== 1.
Md Reyazuddin, son of Md Nurul Haque 2.
Anjum Ara, daughter of Late Md Sagir, wife of Md Reyazuddin, Both residents of village-Babura, Police Station - Dhoraiya (Dhankund), DistrictBanka. 3.
Md Imteyaz, son of Late Md Sagir, Resident of Girhast Tola Barari, Police Station- Barari, District- Bhagalpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2.
The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 3.
The Deputy Collector (Estt), Bhagalpur.
4.
The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur.
5.
The Nazarat Deputy Collector, Bhagalpur.
6.
The Employment Officer, Additional Regional Employment Exchange, Bhagalpur.
... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr Md Najmul Hodda, Advocate For the Respondent/s :
Mr Raghwanand, GA XI with Mr Prabhat Kumar, AC to GA XI ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 07-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondent-State.
2 An Advertisement was published in the year, 1998 for appointment of Class IV employees in the Bhagalpur Collectorate. A panel for appointment was prepared on 29.11.2000. Writ petition has been filed in the year, 2015 seeking a direction for appointment of the petitioners on Grade IV post
Patna High Court CWJC No.7347 of 2015 dt.07-05-2019 2/2 pursuant to the Advertisement of the year, 1998. Reliance is placed on the judgment in the case of Md Shafi Alam & Others -Versus- State of Bihar & Others rendered in CWJC No 7995 of 2004.
3 Petitioners have moved this Court after a delay of about 14 years relying upon dcision in the case of other applicants who had moved in the year, 2004 itself. Claim of the petitioners is barred by principles of delay and laches. Jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not meant for such persons who casually approach this Court without any explanation for such long delay.
4 The specific stand in the counter affidavit is that the panel has already been exhausted and 600 panelists have been recommended for appointment in the different Departments of the district. It is also brought on record that subsequently another Advertisement has also been published for appointment. 5 Claim of the petitioners, in the circumstances, is barred by delay and laches. Writ petition is dismissed. (Madhuresh Prasad, J) M.E.H./- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 22.05.2019 Transmission Date NA