Patna High CourtCWJC/14285/2013dismissed

Ashok Kumar Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-30Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14285 of 2013 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Singh Son Of Late Rajendra Singh Resident Of Village - Laxmipur, Police Station - Kaluahi Via - Khajauli, District - Madhubani .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhubani-Cum-Appellate Authority

3. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal

4. The District Programme Officer, Madhubani

5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Rahika, Police Station - Rahika, District - Madhubani

6. Rajesh Kumar Jha Son Of Devendra Jha Presently Posted And Working As An Prakhand Physical Teachers At Primary School, Shankarpur, Police Station - Rahika District - Madhubani .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Jha, Advocate. For the Respondents No.1 to 5 : Mr.S,K.r. Singh, A.C. to S.C.23 For the Respt. No.4 : Mr. Anup Kumar Poddar, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 30-03-2016 Heard the counsel for the parties.

In this case the petitioner has raised the grievance that he was at Serial No.4 in the seniority list Annexure-1prepared by unit but the person below him had been appointed. As per the claim of the petitioner his name is standing at Serial No.4 whereas the private respondent no.6 who has been appointed is at Serial No.6. The Tribunal has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that he remained sitting idle without any proper step. The ground for rejection is of delay of

Patna High Court CWJC No.14285 of 2013 (3) dt.30-03-2016 2/2 four years.

This Court considers that if the petitioner had really grievance he ought to have approached the appropriate authority within a reasonable time. Four years' time is itself much delay. The Appellate Tribunal rightly refused to grant the relief to the petitioner. In such view of the matter, the present writ petition is not sustainable.

Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) AnilKrSinha/- U