Nunu Devi @ Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6465 of 2008 ====================================================== Nunu Devi @ Kumari , wife of Late indradeo Giri, resident of Mohalla Naya bazaar, Ward No. 3, Saharsa, Post office and police Station - Saharsa, Block - Kahra, district Saharsa .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue and Land Reforms, government of Bihar, Patna

3. The District Magistrate, Saharsa

4. The Additional District magistrate Saharsa

5. The Commissioner, Kosi Division Saharsa

6. the Deputy Development Commissioner, Saharsa

7. The Deputy Collector Establishment, Saharsa Collectorate Saharsa

8. The Deputy Collector nazarat Saharsa Collectorate Saharsa

9. The Superintending Engineer, Canal Circle Saharsa

10. The joint Agriculture Director, Saharsa

11. the Regional Deputy Director Education Kosi Division, Saharsa

12. the Civil Surgeon cum Chief Medical officer, Saharsa

13. The District leprosy Eradication Officer, Saharsa

14. The Executive Engineer Minor irrigation Saharsa

15. The district Annual Animal Husbandry Officer, Saharsa

16. the District Education Officer Saharsa

17. the District Superintendent of Education Saharsa

18. The Agriculture Officer Saharsa

19. The Executive Engineer Road Division, P.W.D. Road Saharsa

20. the District Welfare officer Saharsa .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy Mr. Ashish Dev For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 23-03-2015 Heard Sri Jitendra Kumar Roy, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to SC No. 31.

The petitioner invoking writ jurisdiction of this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has prayed for directing the respondents to consider her name for appointment on Class IV post within the district of Saharsa. It has been

Patna High Court CWJC No.6465 of 2008 (3) dt.23-03-2015 2/2 claimed that petitioner had also applied against the advertisement issued on 7.9.2006.

Learned counsel for the petitioner accepts that petitioner had worked as daily wager since 2003 and pursuant to advertisement she had applied, however, no panel was finally published. On aforesaid grounds it has been prayed for directing for considering appointment of the petitioner. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed, however, it was not served on learned counsel for the petitioner. Learned State Counsel submits that he is not having copy of brief. Accordingly, the court proposes not to take note of the counter affidavit.

Keeping in view the prayer made in the writ petition, the court is of the opinion that no relief can be granted. It is admitted position that petitioner worked as daily wager from 2003 only. Of -course for the time being if it is accepted that as per advertisement she applied and no panel has been prepared, the court is of the opinion that only by way of applying, one does not have indefeasible right for being appointed. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) Praful/- U