Patna High CourtL.P.A/1647/2013dismissed

Ranju Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-08Justice Smt. Nilu Agrawal,Mr. Justice Navaniti Prasad Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No 1647 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 14835 of 2011 =========================================================== Ranju Kumari W/O Sri Vijay Kumar Resident Of Village And P.O- Doma, P.SBakhtiarpur, Distt- Patna. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Sheikhpura.

5. The District Education Officer, Sheikhpura.

6. The Block Deelopment Officer, Ariari, District- Sheikhpura.

7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Ariari, District- Sheikhpura.

8. The Block Pramukh, Ariari Block, District- Sheikhpura.

9. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Through Its Member, District- Sheikhpura.

10. The Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical Officer, Jamui. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr Ranjeet Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr A K Upadhyay, SC 2 =========================================================== CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HON'BLE JUSTICE SMT NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 08-09-2016 Delay in filing the appeal is condoned.

2 Heard learned counsel for the appellant.

3 The appeal is preferred against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 16.04.2012 passed in CWJC No 14835 of 2011 wherein the learned Single Judge, on perusal of the

Patna High Court LPA No.1647 of 2013 dt.08-09-2016 documents of handicapped, found variance in them and, accordingly, refused to exercise his discretion in the matter and dismissed the writ petition.

4 The learned Single Judge, having refused to exercise discretion in the matter and on the facts rightly so, we are not inclined to entertain this appeal.

5 This appeal is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) U M.E.H./-