Shovaiba Khatoon v. The State of Bihar, Through District Magistrate, Samaharnalay Saran, Cha
Case at a glance
- Bench
- P B BAJANTHRI
Outcome
Dismissed
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as
Provisions considered
- Constitution of India art. 226
- Limitation Act, 1963 s. 14
Judgment
Versus The State of Bihar, Through District Magistrate, Samaharnalay Saran, Cha- para, District- Chapra, Saran, Bihar,.
District Programme Officer District - Chapra, Saran, Bihar.
Child Development Project officer, Panapur, District - Chapra, Saran, Bihar. Sitara Khatoon W/ - Najir Ahamad R/o Village - Ubhwa Sarangpur, P/O- Rampurrudra, P/S - Panapur, District- Saran, PIN - 841433, Bihar. ... ... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s For the Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI Mr. Ajeet Singh, Advocate Mr. Vikash Kumar, SC 11 : : Date : 11-02-2022 ORAL JUDGMENT This matter is heard via video conferencing due to cir- cumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Service of notice to fourth respondent-Sitara Khatoon is dispensed with since no adverse order is passed against her. In the instant petition, petitioner has prayed for the fol- lowing relief(s):-
For issuance of an appropri- ate writ/writs, direction/directions, di- recting the respondent no 1,2 and 3 to make necessary enquires/verifications of the certificates produced by Sitara Kha- toon, hereinafter referred as Respondent no 4, appointed as Sevika, wrongly (as her educational certificates are false/fake and she is not qualified as standard 8 pass, she was above the petitioner in the Patna High Court CWJC No.7642 of 2021 dt.11-02-2022 merit list) cancel her appointment and appoint the petitioner Shovaiba khatoon, on the said post, against the said vacancy as she is 3rd in the final merit list and the Respondent no 4 Sitara Khatoon is not qualified for the said appointment, as she can hardly put her Signatures.
The petitioner has statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority.
Operative part
Without exhausting the statutory remedy of ap- peal writ petition cannot be entertained in the light of Hon’ble Apex Court decision in the case of State of Jammu and Kashmir Vs. R.K. Zalpuri and others reported in AIR 2016 Supreme Court 3006 held as under:- “20. Having stated thus, it is useful to refer to a passage from City and Industrial Development Corporation v. Dosu Aardeshir Bhiwandiwala and Oth- ers, wherein this Court while dwelling upon jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has expressed thus:-
The Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 is duty- bound to consider whether: (a) adjudication of writ petition involves any complex and disputed ques- tions of facts and whether they can be sat- isfactorily resolved; (b) the petition reveals all ma- terial facts; (c) the petitioner has any alter- native or effective remedy for the resolu- tion of the dispute; (d) person invoking the juris- diction is guilty of unexplained delay and laches; (e) ex facie barred by any laws of limitation; Patna High Court CWJC No.7642 of 2021 dt.11-02-2022 (f) grant of relief is against public policy or barred by any valid law; and host of other factors.
Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as premature reserving liberty to the petitioner to approach appellate authority in filing an appeal.
The appellate authority is hereby directed to take note of Section 14 of the Limitation Act for the purpose of condonation of delay in presenting memorandum of appeal. If such appeal is filed the same shall be considered within a period of four months from the date of receipt of appeal, after giving due opportunity of hear- ing to eighth respondent-Sitara Khatoon. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) Vikash/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date Transmission Date
Questions this judgment answers
What did the Court decide in this case?
The Court recorded the following disposition: Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed as
Which statutory provisions did this judgment involve?
Constitution of India — art. 226; Limitation Act, 1963 — s. 14.
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.