Petitioners filed a writ petition seeking directions to respondents to dispose of a representation for promotion to Additional District Public Relation Officer w.e.f. 1973. The bench rejected the petition as stale.
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.9508 of 2014 (3) dt.16-11-2017 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9508 of 2014
======================================================
Versus
……..Performa Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Shankar Prasad For the Respondent/s :
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
3 16-11-2017 Heard both sides.
The petitioners have filed this writ petition for a
direction to the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to dispose of the representation of the petitioner filed in pursuance of order dated
Patna High Court CWJC No.9508 of 2014 (3) dt.16-11-2017 2
07.07.2011 in L.P.A. No.1488 of 2010.
The petitioner earlier filed CWJC No.16746 of 2008 praying for promotion as Additional District Public Relation Officer w.e.f. 1973. The Single Bench dismissed the writ petition of the petitioner on the ground of latches because the petitioner filed the writ petition in the year 2008 for promotion on the post of Additional District Public Relation Officer w.e.f. 1973. The petitioner retired in the year 1987. After 20 years from the date of retirement, the petitioner filed the writ petition and on that ground, the writ petition was dismissed as the claim of the petitioner was found stale. The petitioner preferred L.P.A. L.P.A. which was disposed of by the order dated 07.07.2011 with a direction to the appellant to file representation to the authority who shall dispose of the representation. Again, the petitioner filed M.J.C. No.4474 of 2012 and Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 25.10.2013 dismissed the contempt petition that the L.P.A. Court did not give any positive direction nor directed any particular officer to dispose of the representation of the petitioner. A vague direction could not make any officer answerable for contempt of Court and there cannot be a vicarious liability for contempt of Court. Accordingly, the contempt petition was dismissed. The petitioner again filed writ petition with a prayer to direct the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9508 of 2014 (3) dt.16-11-2017 3
particular officer to dispose of the representation of the petitioner.
It appears that claim of the petitioner is itself stale, therefore, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is rejected.
(Prabhat Kumar Jha, J)
Saurabh/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the writ petition claiming promotion from 1973 is maintainable after being filed in 2008.
Whether the claim for promotion is stale given the petitioner retired in 1987.
Mira Devi
Niranjan Kumar
State of Bihar
Prabhnet Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
