Amar Pratap v. The State of Bihar
Case at a glance
- Bench
- MADHURESH PRASAD
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
Judgment
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar (SC-11) : : 2 01-08-2023
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and ORAL ORDER learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner was removed from his contractual existence as a Grami Awas Sahayak by an order dated 8-2-2019 passed by the District Magistrate, Katihar.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner has been removed alleging below performance, whereas others who perform inferior to him, have been retained.
Learned counsel for the State submits that from the Patna High Court CWJC No.3490 of 2023(2) dt.01-08-2023 averment in the writ petition, it is apparent that the petitioner's contractual services as Gramin Awas Sahayak was terminated by the District Magistrate, in compliance with Clause-7 of the Guidelines (Annexure-8) issued for the purpose as contained in letter dated 21-10-2014 issued by the Rural Development Department. Clause 7 of the same reads as follows: "(7) अननुबबध पर ककियया जयानया- ऐससे द्रषष्टांत आ सकितसे हह। जहहाँ कितर्तव्यहहीनतया एबव अन्य न्ययायसबगत आधयार पर गयामहीण आवयास किकमर्तययों किसे अननुबबध किको रद्द किरनसे किही आवश्यकितया महससूस हको । इस सबबबध ममें प्रखण्ड कवकियास पदयाकधकियारही किही अननुशबसया तथया उपकवकियास आयनुक्त किही समहीककोपरयान्त प्रयाप्त आरकोप पत्र किसे आधयार पर आरकोकपत पक किही सनुनवयाई किसे पशयात कजलया पदयाकधकियारही किसे दयारया यनुकक्तयनुक्त आदसेश पयाकरत ककियया जयायसेगया । इस तरह ससे पयाकरत अननुबबध रद्द आदसेश किसे कवरुद्ध अपहील कवभयागहीय सकचिव / प्रधयान सकचिव किसे समक अननुबबध रद्द आदसेश पयाकरत ककियसे जयानसे किही कतकथ किसे तहीन मयाह किसे अबदर ककियया जया सकिसे गया।"
The petitioner has also preferred an appeal against the order dated 08.02.2019 passed by the District Magistrate. His appeal has been rejected on 3-12-2019 (Annexure-7).
The submission is that the writ petition also suffers from delay and laches inasmuch as an order passed in December 2019 has been challenged by way of the instant writ petition filed in February 2023.
The petitioner's counsel submits that due to the Patna High Court CWJC No.3490 of 2023(2) dt.01-08-2023 outbreak of COVID-19 and the fact that the petitioner is financially weak, the delay has occurred.
The issue of the petitioner's disability on account of outbreak of COVID-19 appears to be unfounded. The order of appellate authority is dated 03-12-2019, i.e., about four months prior to imposition of national lockdown and restrictions, in the wake of Covid-19 pandemic. The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition on 02.03.2023, i.e. more than one and a half years even after restrictions ceased to exist. The plea regarding the outbreak of Covid-19 is therefore unfounded.
The other aspect of the petitioner's financial incapacity is also unfounded. Had the petitioner exercised due diligence and if was qualified for financial assistance, he could have approached the legal aid services.
The plea of delay and latches therefore has not been met sufficiently by the petitioner to overcome the objection raised by the State counsel.
The other aspect of the matter is that seeking a comparative appreciation of his performance with some other posted, as Gramin Awas Sahayak is a factual dispute, which this Court is not inclined to enter into in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India. The law is well Patna High Court CWJC No.3490 of 2023(2) dt.01-08-2023 settled that the writ Court normally is not expected to sit in appeal of the decision itself, but to confine the scope of judicial review to the decision making process. The procedure laid down in Clause 7 of the letter dated 21-10-2014 having been followed observing the principles of natural justice, this Court is not inclined to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in favor of the petitioner.
The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. SUMIT/- U (Madhuresh Prasad, J)
Precedent status how later indexed judgments have treated this case
No known negative treatment found in the Courts & Cases corpus.
This is a result about the indexed corpus, not a finding that the judgment remains good law. Coverage may be incomplete.