IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16176 of 2007
Sk. Mustafa, son of late Alimuddin, resident of Village & P.O.
Madanpur, Police Station Araria, District Araria.
-------- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Secretary, Human Resources
Department, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman Establishment Committee,
Araria.
4. The Additional Collector, Establishment, Araria.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Araria.
6. The Block Extension Education Officer, Araria-2, District
Araria.
-------- Respondents
-----------
3 15.4.2011 After some arguments, learned counsel
for the petitioner, realizing that the
application filed by the petitioner for
appointment on compassionate ground was
clearly time barred, would fairly submit that
he would not like to press this application,
inasmuch as, he does not find any plausible
explanation for such delay in filing of the
application by the petitioner.
This Court even otherwise could not have
looked into the aspect of compassionate
appointment considering the fact that the
father of the petitioner had died in the year
1978 and the writ application has been filed
on 11.12.2007 and his earlier writ
application filed before this Court for the
2
same relief had met a similar fate in an
order of division bench dated 2.7.1992 in
CWJC No. 738 of 1991, which reads as
follows:-
“In view of the fact that the
petitioner died as far back as in the
year 1978 and as in view of the circular
issued by the State of Bihar which was
prevalent at that time, the petitioner’s
case for appointment on compassionate
ground could have been considered only
within two years from the date of death,
and as it appears that the petitioner
filed second representation in the year
1985; first being in the year 1979, we
do not intend to exercise our discretion
under Article 226 of the constitution of
India on the ground of delay and latches
on the part of the petitioner.
The application, is therefore,
dismissed.”
In view of the aforesaid order this
writ application is clearly barred by the
principles of Resjudicata and constructive
Resjudicata.
That being so, this application is,
accordingly, dismissed as not pressed.
Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)