Patna High CourtCWJC/77/2016disposed

Haridas Choudhary v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-04-06Mr. Justice Jyoti Saran2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.77 of 2016 ====================================================== Haridas Choudhary, Son of Late Buni Lal Chaudhary, resident of VillageBishunpur and Gram Panchayat at Nautan (Aampur) Police Station- Siwan, District- Siwan.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Directorate of Panchayati Raj Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The District Magistrate, Siwan

5. The District Panchayati Officer, Siwan

6. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commissioner, Post- Vetnary College, Patna.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Karandeep Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Anirban Kundu, SC-24 For the SSC : Mr. Kamla Kant Upadhyay, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 06-04-2017 Heard Mr. Karandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Anirban Kundu, learned SC-24, for the State. It is stated by Mr. Karandeep Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner, that the case of the petitioner for appointment as Panchayat Sevak was considered in the year 2000 but was not taken to its conclusion and at which time the petitioner was within the prescribed age limit. He submits that it is delayed action of the respondents in considering the case of the petitioner in the year 2006 that has made the petitioner over age.

Perhaps the grievance of the petitioner does have a

Patna High Court CWJC No.77 of 2016 (3) dt.06-04-2017 substance but for the delay in approaching this Court. The issue, which took its birth in the year 2000, was never contested and even the impugned order having been passed in the year 2006 yet it has taken more than a decade for the petitioner to realize his enforceable rights.

Considering unexplained laches and delay that this Court is not persuaded to grant indulgence.

The writ petition is disposed of.

(Jyoti Saran, J) Surendra/- U