Dr. Shefaliaka Verma v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22485 of 2012 ====================================================== Dr. Shefaliaka Verma, wife of Late Sh. Lalan Kumar Verma, at present residing in Flat No. 94, First Floor, DDA SFS Flats, Dr. Mukherjee Nagar, Delhi-110009.

.... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Higher Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Hon'ble Chancellor, Universities of Bihar, Governor's Secretariat, Raj Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna.

4. The Vice Chancellor, B.N.Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura.

5. The Registrar, B.N.Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura.

6. The Principal, SNSRKS College, Saharsa.

.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Subodh Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : AC to Addl. Advocate General - 4 Mr. Manish Dhari Singh ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 4.

25-05-2017 Heard Sri Subodh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner, learned A.C. to Addl. Advocate General - 4 as well as Sri Manish Dhari Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 4 & 5/B.N.Mandal University.

The petitioner, who superannuated w.e.f. 31-08-2003 as Lecturer, has filed the present writ petition almost at the fag end of 2012 i.e. 06-12-2012, with a prayer to direct the respondents to promote her as "Reader".

On being asked as to why writ petition was filed after nine years from the date of retirement of petitioner, Sri Subodh Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that

Patna High Court CWJC No.22485 of 2012 (4) dt.25-05-2017 2/2 petitioner was filing representation-and-representation, but thereafter, the petitioner approached this Court invoking its writ jurisdiction.

The Court is of the opinion that after nine years from the date of retirement, only on the pretext that petitioner had filed representations, there would be difficulty to entertain such petition. This suggests that if any right had accrued, the petitioner herself has slumbered over her right for such a long time and as such, the writ petition may not be entertained. The writ petition stands dismissed.

(Rakesh Kumar, J.) Anay U