Sri Bhagwan Prasad v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1350 of 2014 ====================================================== Sri Bhagwan Prasad, S/O Sita Ram Prasad, resident of Village and PostJhajhwa Bazar, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kushar at Jhajhwa Bazar, BlockSidhwalia, P.S- Mohammadpur, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Petitioners

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

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

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

4. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.

6. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj.

7. The District Programme Officer ( Establishment), Gopalganj.

8. The Block Development Officer, Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.

9. The Block Education Officer, Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.

10. The Panchayat Sikshak Niyojan Samiti, Kushar at Jhajhawa Bazar through its Member Secretary Cum Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kushar at Jhajhwa Bazar, Block- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.

11. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kushar at Jhajhawa Bazar, Block- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.

12. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kushar at Jhajhawa Bazar, BlockSidhwalia, District- Gopalganj.

13. The District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Gopalganj.

14. Prabhat Kapoor, S/O Munni Lal Prasad Yadav, resident of Village Chamanpura, P.S- Sidhwalia, District- Gopalganj. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey No-5, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr. Ashok Kumar, S.C.11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 06-02-2015 Even if the rationale and reasoning given by the Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Gopalganj, contained in Annexure 11, is not affirmed, when in all the forums the petitioner's claim has been rejected, the fact remains that the petitioner had moved the Tribunal only in the year

Patna High Court CWJC No.1350 of 2014 (3) dt.06-02-2015 2/2 2010 assailing the selection and appointments made way back in 2006. The settled decision cannot be unsettled at the behest of the petitioner after more than four years of selection on some kind of wishy-washy allegation. Since there is inordinate delay which, in the opinion of the Court, is good enough not to interfere with the decision of the Tribunal, because the end result will remain the same, even if the rationale given by the Tribunal is held to be otherwise.

The writ application is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) PNM U