Ashwini Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and ors

Ashwini Kumar vs The State of Bihar and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 11, 2012

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/975003

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/975003
Court: Patna High Court
Decided On: May 11, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Ashwini Kumar

Respondent

The State of Bihar and ors

Excerpt

.....is said that the collector had sent it to the district superintendent of education, sheohar, but he did not take 2 any action. thereafter petitioner filed an application in the public grievances cell, sehohar. however, except for his pleading, there is no document on record to show that the petitioners alleged application dated 08.04.2003 was received in the office of the collector and any action was taken on his application. the next document annexed with the writ application is only a letter of the district superintendent of education, sheohar addressed to the collector, sheohar dated 02.02.2009 which refers to some complaint of the petitioner. obviously this compliant relates to statement of the petitioner that he had filed an application in the public grievances cell, sheohar. thus, it is apparent that, even if the petitioner has filed his application before the collector on 08.04.2003, he sat over the matter for almost six years and another application appears to have been filed in 2009. clearly, after the rules have came into force and the legal position has changed 3 and all the shiksha mitras have became regular panchayat teachers, the petitioner has woke up to stake his claim for his appointment on the basis that appointments of shiksha mitras made in the process of 2003 were illegal. this court finds that the writ application suffers from gross delay and laches. the same is therefore dismissed. arvind/ ( j.n. singh, j.)

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.511 o”

1. Ashwini Kumar S/O Sri Virendra Kumar R/O Village- Ambakala, P.S.- Piprahi, District - Sheohar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Collector, Sheohar 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Sheohar 5. The Block Development Officer, Piprahi, Distt.- Sheohar 6. Gram Panchayat Raj, Amba North P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sheohar Through Its Mukhiya 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Amba North, P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sheohar 8. The Panchayat Sachiv Gram Panchayat Raj, Amba North, P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sheohar 9. Rakeya D/O Md. Sagir Alam R/O Village- Sheikhtoli, Amba North, P.S.- Piprahi, District- Sheohar ---------------------------------”

11. 01.2012 Petitioner is aggrieved by the appointment of Shiksha Mitras in 2003. It appears from Annexure-1 that there was some scrutiny of the appointment by the Collector and he found the appointments made as correct. It is pleaded in paragraph 14 of the writ application that petitioner had filed an application thereafter before the Collector on 08.04.2003. It is said that the Collector had sent it to the District Superintendent of Education, Sheohar, but he did not take 2 any action. Thereafter petitioner filed an application in the Public Grievances Cell, Sehohar. However, except for his pleading, there is no document on record to show that the petitioners alleged application dated 08.04.2003 was received in the office of the Collector and any action was taken on his application. The next document annexed with the writ application is only a letter of the District Superintendent of Education, Sheohar addressed to the Collector, Sheohar dated 02.02.2009 which refers to some complaint of the petitioner. Obviously this compliant relates to statement of the petitioner that he had filed an application in the Public Grievances Cell, Sheohar. Thus, it is apparent that, even if the petitioner has filed his application before the Collector on 08.04.2003, he sat over the matter for almost six years and another application appears to have been filed in 2009. clearly, after the Rules have came into force and the legal position has changed 3 and all the Shiksha Mitras have became regular Panchayat Teachers, the petitioner has woke up to stake his claim for his appointment on the basis that appointments of Shiksha Mitras made in the process of 2003 were illegal. This Court finds that the writ application suffers from gross delay and laches. The same is therefore dismissed. Arvind/ ( J.N. Singh, J.)

Same Court & Year Patna · 2012 Same Parties Ashwini Kumar vs The State of Bihar and ors Same Subject Education