Single Judge held a writ petition seeking quashing of an order imposing a mandatory counseling as misconceived because the petitioner failed to disclose certain material facts earlier before this Court or the Tribunal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1568 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1568 of 2013
| ========== Kumari Sima The State Of ========== Appearance For the Petiti For the Respo ========= |
========= Bihar & Ors ========= : oner/s : ndent/s : ========= |
=================================== .... .... Petitioner/s Versus .... .... Respondent/s =================================== Mr. Abhay Kumar Thakur Mr. Manoj Kr. Ambasta Gp14 ================================== |
|
|---|---|---|---|
CORAM: PRATAP SI ORAL ORDE |
HONOURA NGH R |
BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA |
|
| 2 | 08-02-2013 The |
petitioner | seeks quashing of the order dated |
| 18.12.2012 | /31.12.2012 | passed by the Appellate Authority, Purnia | |
| in Appeal | Case No. | 1084 of 2012 (Review Petition). The | |
| petitioners | further pr | ays for a direction for cancellation of | |
| counseling | held on | 10.5.2012 and appointment of Poonam | |
| Kumari, r | espondent | no.11, and consequently reinstate the | |
| petitioner i | n service wi | th all consequential benefits. |
The petitioner states that she was appointed as Panchayat teacher in Hansda Gram Panchayat Raj on 12.5.2007. One Poonam Kumari filed a complaint before the Appellate Tribunal against her which was allowed. Being aggrieved, the petitioner moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No.4774 of 2012 which was dismissed by order dated 16.3.2012.
It is stated at the bar that the petitioner has preferred an appeal against the order of learned Single Judge.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1568 of 2013 (2) dt.08-02-2013
2
Counsel for the State submits that the petitioner has filed review petition before the Appellate Tribunal which too was rejected.
The petitioner has come before this Court against the impugned order dated 18.12.2012/31.12.2012 contained in Annexure-21. The petitioner submits that she filed a review petition before the Appellate Tribunal as certain facts could not be brought earlier either before this Court or before the Tribunal.
In my view, this writ application is misconceived. If the petitioner could not bring certain facts before this Court, it is the petitioner who herself has to be blamed or she could have filed an appropriate application before this Court bringing those facts on record instead of moving the Tribunal when this Court had already dismissed her application preferred against cancellation of her appointment.
Further more the petitioner has already preferred an appeal before a Division Bench of this Court against the order of learned Single Judge dated 16.3.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4774 of 2012. This writ application is accordingly dismissed with the observation aforesaid.
(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)
KHAN/-
1 issue framed by the court
Whether a review petition filed before the Appellate Tribunal introduces new facts that justify maintaining a subsequent writ petition challenging an interim order.
Kumari Sima
The State Of Bihar
Samarendra Pratap Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
