Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.


Patna High Court – Orders
Chhaya Bharti vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 September, 2011
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   Letters Patent Appeal No.1193 of 2011
                                                     In
                               Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2488 of 2010
                                                    With
                                 Interlocutory Application No. 5859 of 2011
                                                     In
                                   Letters Patent Appeal No.1193 of 2011.
                 ======================================================
                 Chhaya Bharti, W/o Sri Praphul Kumar, R/v - Barohauna, P.O.- Brohauna,
                 P.S. - Karakat, Distt. - Banka
                                                             (Petitioner in CWJC 2488/10)
                                                                         .... .... Appellant
                                                   Versus
                 1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar,
                 Patna,
                 2. The Commissioner, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur,
                 3. The District Magistrate, Banka, Distt. - Banka,
                 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Banka, Distt. - Banka,
                 5. The District Welfare Officer, Banka, Distt. - Banka,
                 6. The Child Development Project Officer, Barahat, Distt. - Banka,
                 7. The Panchayat Sewak Mirjapur, Changeri Gram Panchayat,            P.S. -
                 Barahat, Block - Barahat, Distt.- Banka,
                 8. The Mukhiya of Mirjapur Panchayat, Block - Barahat, Distt. -Banka
                                                (Respondents in CWJC No. 2488/10)
                                                               .... .... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha, Advocate.

                 For the Respondent/s     :
                                      Mr. Parth Sharthi, SC 10 and
                                      Mr. Mrigendra Kumar, AC to SC 10.
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
                        and
                        HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

                 ORAL ORDER

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

3 16-09-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises
from the judgment and order dated 19th August 2010 made by the
learned single Judge in above CWJC No. 2488 of 2010.

2 Patna High Court LPA No.1193 of 2011 (3) dt.16-09-2011

2/3

The appellant-writ petitioner challenged the order of the
Commissioner, Bhagalpur dated 17th September 2009 made in
Miscellaneous Appeal No. 01/2008-09 setting aside the order
dated 17th December 2007 made by the District Magistrate, Banka
upholding the appointment of the appellant as Anganbari Sevika.
The challenge has been rejected by the learned single Judge on the
ground of non-joinder of necessary party and also on merits.
Therefore, the present Appeal.

Learned Advocate Mr. Vijay Kumar Sinha has
strenuously urged that the appointment of the appellant was made
in 2004. The said appointment could not have been examined on
the basis of the circular issued in 2006. The appointment of the
appellant was in consonance with the then prevalent circular dated
13th June 1998.

We are unable to agree with the learned Advocate. The
learned single Judge has categorically held that even during the
pendency of the proceedings the appellant did not make any effort
to cure the defect. Besides, as it is apparent from the impugned
order, the learned single Judge has examined the appointment of
the appellant on the basis of the circular dated 13th June 1998. The
contentions raised before us are, therefore, untenable.

This Appeal is filed 290 days beyond the period of
limitation. It is stated that the learned counsel appearing for the
appellant was suffering from Gall Bladder stone and had to
undergo surgery. Therefore, the delay. The supporting medical
report suggests that the learned counsel was under medical care
during the months from July 2010 to October 2010. The Appeal
was filed in July 2011. The delay from November 2010 to July
2011 has not been explained at all.

3 Patna High Court LPA No.1193 of 2011 (3) dt.16-09-2011

3/3

For the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss the Appeal on
limitation as well as on merits.

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of.

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Dilip.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

107 queries in 0.171 seconds.