Veena Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18511 of 2021 ====================================================== Veena Kumari Wife of Manish Chandra Mani, Resident of Village- Khurasan, Ward No. 7, Post Office- Rasalpur, District - Saharsa, Pin - 852129, Bihar. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

2.

The District Education Officer, Saharsa.

3.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Saharsa. 4.

Block Development Officer, Bamna Itahari, Post Office and Police StationItahari, District - Saharsa. 5.

Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Maharat, Banma Itahari, Saharsa. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Binita Singh (SC 28) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-09-2022 The petitioner admittedly did not participate in the selection process of the Block teacher conducted in the year 2006 after having applied for the post. It is stated in the petition that she was not allowed to participate in the garb of verification while identically other persons participated in the selection process. Thus, if the contention of the petitioner is accepted after she was denied to participate in 2006, no one prevented her from approaching to any court of law for redressal of the her grievance. However, she has not preferred any petition at that relevant time, and has now, preferred a writ petition in 2021 praying for considering her appointment in the light of

Patna High Court CWJC No.18511 of 2021(2) dt.08-09-2022 2/2 judgments passed in to some other cases, where the candidates approached the court within time.

In matters relating to selections/appointments, a person is required to be vigilant of his rights. He cannot be allowed to sleep for years together and take up the issue after passage of long time. Reasonable period has been held to be of three years by the Hon'ble Apex Court in several cases. Thus, in the present case, this court is not inclined to entertain the petition as it suffers from gross delay and laches. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) amit/sachin Item No. 53 U