Smt. Kiran v. Savita Kumari And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No 1821 of 2016 =========================================================== Smt. Kiran, wife of Shri Ravi Bhushan Kumar, Resident of Village - Pirhinda, Police Station - Sikandara, District - Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1 Savita Kumari, wife of Shri Kamlesh Kumar, Daughter of Shri Madhusudan Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla - Krishnapatti, Police Station - Jamui, District - Jamui 2 The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna 3 The District Magistrate, Jamui 4 The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui 5 The Block Development Officer, Khaira Block, Jamui 6 The Block Education Extension Officer, Khaira Block, Jamui 7 The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui through its Chairman 8 The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui 9 The Mukhiya, Khaira Gram Panchayat, Block - Khaira, District - Jamui 10 The Panchayat Secretary, Khaira Gram Panchayat, Block - Khaira, District - Jamui .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : N O N E For Respondent/s No 1 : Mr Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr Avinish Nandan Sinha, GP 21 =========================================================== 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: 21-09-2016 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the State and counsel for respondent No 1 are present. 2 By this application, the petitioner (Smt Kiran), who was respondent No 10 in the Letters Patent Appeal, seeks recall of the final order passed in the Letters Patent Appeal as her counsel could

Patna High Court MJC No.1821 of 2016 dt.21-09-2016 not appear on the day when the case was listed and taken up. There is no denial that the case was duly listed and the counsel was present on all earlier occasions except when the case was finally taken up. The matter cannot be reheard again as the party has full knowledge of listing of the case.

3 In that view of the matter, this application is dismissed as even today, petitioner has chosen to remain absent. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) U M.E.H./-