Patna High CourtCWJC/20636/2011dismissed

Neelkamal v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-06-26Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20636 of 2011 ====================================================== Neelkamal S/O Raghunath Gupta R/O Anandpur, Post Anandpur, P.S. Laxmipur, District Jamui.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Department Of Human Resources, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Jamui.

3. The District Education Officer, Jamui.

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Jamui.

5. The District Teachers Selection Appellate Tribunal, Jamui.

6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Laxmipur, Jamui.

7. The Block Development Officer, Laxmipur, Jamui.

8. The Panchayat Secretary, Anandpur, Laxmipur, Jamui.

9. Laxman Kumar Son Of Brijnandan Ram Resident Of Goddi, P.S.-Laxmipur, District-Jamui.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Sita Ram Yadav, G.P.-16.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 26-06-2018 It appears from the order sheet that at no point of time, counsel for the petitioner appeared in the case to assist the court.

The writ petition is pending for the last seven years. Petitioner has challenged the decision of the District Teachers Selection Appellate Tribunal, Jamui in Case No. 83 of 2010 whereby selection of the petitioner was cancelled and direction was issued to the respondent authorities for appointment of private respondent no.9 in place of petitioner. In view of the fact that for the last seven years the

Patna High Court CWJC No.20636 of 2011(7) dt.26-06-2018 2/2 petitioner has not appeared before this court to place the present writ petition as order sheets indicate that on one or the other pretext he sought adjournment and even today. The aforesaid facts indicate that petitioner has lost interest in the present case and as such there is no point to keep this petition pending. In view of the above, the present writ application is dismissed as not pressed by the petitioner. However, liberty shall be available to the petitioner in case petitioner has any subsisting grievance, he may approach the appropriate forum or court for redressal of his grievance.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U