Allowed

Md. Shaukat v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Feb 2013L.P.A/1932/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court condoned a 222-day delay in filing the Letters Patent Appeal. The Court held an ex parte order against the appellant to be a nullity and allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and remitting the case for fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

The Letters Patent Appeal is allowed. The impugned order and consequential deployment order are set aside. The case is remitted to the learned single Judge for fresh hearing.

Md. Shaukat Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1932 of 2012

¶3

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16154 of 2011

¶5

With

¶6

Interlocutory Application No. 8175 of 2012 And Interlocutory Application No. 8176 of 2012

¶7

¶8

Letters Patent Appeal No. 1932 of 2012.

¶9

====================================================== Md. Shaukat, aged about 26 years, S/o Md. Ali, Panchayat Teacher, Naya Prathmik Vidyalaya, Jandarhi Mauahi Gram Panchayat Murhadi Block, P.S.- Babubarhi, District - Madhubani

¶10

.... .... Appellant – Respondent.

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶13

The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Madhubani

¶14

The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶15

The District Magistrate, Madhubani

¶16

The District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani

¶17

The Block Development Officer, Babubarahi, Madhubani

¶18

The Block Education Extension Officer, Babubarahi, Madhubani

¶19

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Murhgadi, Babubarahi, Madhubani

¶20

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Murhadi, Babubarahi, Madhubani ……….. Respondents - Respondents

¶21

Shobhakant Roy, S/o Late Fakir Roy, R/o Village - Dudahi, P.S.Babubarahi, District- Madhubani

¶22

.... .... Petitioner - Respondent

¶23

====================================================== Appearance:

¶24

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh, Advocate.

¶25

For the Respondents-State: Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC 25.

¶26

Patna High Court LPA No.1932 of 2012 (4) dt.18-02-2013

¶27

¶28

For the Respondent no. 10: Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Advocate.

¶29

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶30

ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶31

Re. Interlocutory Application No. 8175 of 2012. The delay of 222 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned.

¶32

4 18-02-2013

¶33

Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1932 of 2012 and Interlocutory Application No. 8176 of 2012.

¶34

This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred by the respondent no. 10 against the order dated 26^th March 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 16154 of 2011.

¶35

It is the complaint of the appellant that the impugned order has been made ex parte against him and is prejudicial to him.

¶36

Learned advocate Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Jha has appeared for the writ petitioner – the respondent no. 10 in the Letters Patent Appeal. He has submitted that the impugned order has already been implemented by the authority below and that the order made by the authority below has been challenged by the present appellant in CWJC No. 23037 of 2012. The Writ Petition has been entertained by this Court and has been admitted to final hearing.

¶37

Be that as it may, the impugned order, having been made ex parte against the appellant, is a nullity and cannot be

¶38

Patna High Court LPA No.1932 of 2012 (4) dt.18-02-2013

¶39

¶40

sustained.

¶41

For the aforesaid reason, the Appeal is allowed. The order dated 26^th March 2012 made by the learned single Judge in CWJC No. 16154 of 2011 is set aside.

¶42

CWJC No. 16154 of 2011 is revived and remitted to the learned single Judge, as per roster, for hearing and decision afresh.

¶43

Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh assures this Court that the appellant – the respondent no. 10 will file his appearance and counter affidavit, if any, in CWJC No. 16154 of 2011 within three weeks from today.

¶44

The Appeal and the Interlocutory Application are disposed of in the above terms.

¶45

The consequential order dated 16^th November 2012 made by the District Teacher Employment Appellant Authority, Madhubani in Case No. 157/2006/2011 stands set aside.

¶46

The parties will bear their own costs.

¶47

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶48

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶49

Dilip.

Md. Shaukat v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Shaukat v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhola Sadai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bihar State Cooperative Marketing Uniopn Ltd. Vs Indian Farmers Fertilizer Cooperative Ltd. and Ors.

Ram Keshwar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Md. Nasiruddin and Ors.

Bhola Pandit Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bihar State Housing Board and Ors. Vs Jari Devi @ Anjari Devi and Ors.