Renu Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.383 of 2015 Arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15934 of 2010 =========================================================== Renu Kumari,Wife of Awadhesh Kumar, resident of Village - Chhonubigha, P.O.+ P.S. - Sirdala, District- Nawada .... .... Petitioner / Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Director, Primary Education Directorate, New Secretariat Patna, Bihar

3. The Principal Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Bihar, Patna.

4. The Member of District Education Employment Appellate Authority, Nawada, District- Nawada.

5. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Programme Convener, Nawada, District-Nawada.

6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sirdala, Nawadah

7. The Block Development Officer, Sirdala, Nawada

8. Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Akauna under Block Sirdala, Nawada

9. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat-cum- Gram Sevak, Akauna, Sirdala, DistrictNawada

10. Soni Kumari Suman Daughter of Sri Sohar Ram resident of Village + P.O. + P.S.- Sirdala, District - Nawada.

.... .... Respondents / Respondents.

=========================================================== Appearance:

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Prashant Sinha, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. D.K. Sinha, PAAG 2. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 28-06-2017 A settled position cannot be unsettled after 10 years. The appointment of the private respondent was made on a post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2007. The appellant moved the Appellate Authority against such selection in the year 2010 pointing out the infirmity that she was not given information with regard to

Patna High Court LPA No.383 of 2015 dt.28-06-2017 2/2 giving consent for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The appellant has not denied the fact that she did participate in the counseling and in terms of the 2006 Rules, consent was required to be given within a week. The appellant, who has an ambition of becoming a teacher, is not aware of the rules, then this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 22.12.2014 and reward her for her own omission and inaction on such selection.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 29.06.2017 Transmission Date N/A