Tamannna Prabeen And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13992 of 2016 ====================================================== 1.

Tamannna Prabeen 2.

Sahin Prabeen both daughter of Halimuddin resident of MohallaBhadaunisharif, P.S. and Dist- Nawada, ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Nawada 4.

District Teacher Niyozan Appellate Authority, Nawada, through its Secretary 5.

Id Member, District Teacher Niyozan Appellate Authority Nawada, 6.

District Education Officer, Nawada 7.

The District Programme Officer Establishment - Education, Nawada 8.

Block Development Officer, Nawada 9.

Pramukh, Nawada Block, Nawada 10.

Block Education Extension Officer, Nawada ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Pushkar Narain Shahi-Aag10 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 08-03-2022 The case is being taken up from defect side.

Learned counsel for the petitioners is directed to submit the original petition along with attested affidavits and also remove the defects pointed out by the Registry within two weeks from today.

Admittedly, the petitioners submitted an appeal before the District Appellate Authority regarding the non-selection. The case of the respondents is that there was no application of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13992 of 2016(4) dt.08-03-2022 2/2 petitioners up to the last date. The District Appellate Authority has also reached to the conclusion that the petitioners applied only in the year 2007 for consideration for appointment, whereas the last date for submitting application form was August, 2006. Thus, the application of the petitioner could not have been considered and was submitted after one year of the expiry of cut of date. In the circumstances, there was no occasion to offer employment to the petitioners. Thus, nonselection of the petitioners does not warrant any interference. In view of the finding of the fact as arrived above by the authority, this court would not interfere with the finding of the fact.

Considering the same, the writ petition is dismissed. (Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) amit/- U