SARITA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the appellant. There is an absolutely unexplained inordinate delay of four years and 284 days inasmuch as according to the appellant herself she had come to know about the status of the dismissal of the writ petition when her husband had arrived in this Court to file another writ petition in the year 2016. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 10/5/2013.

(2.) It is also not in dispute that some other person had already been occupying the post which is being claimed by the appellant and it is this which came to be challenged in the subsequent writ petition. It is, therefore, clear that the appellant cannot take a plea of not having knowledge about the dismissal of her earlier writ petition on the pretext that she had not been informed by her counsel.

(3.) The appellant appears to be vigilant enough to contest the appointment of the person appointed against the said post in 2016 and it is long thereafter, that the present appeal has been filed assailing the judgement of the year 2013. Even on merits, learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the judgement in the case of Vimal Kumari and another vs. State of Bihar and others, reported in 2017(1) PLJR 11 paragraph-16 to contend that no such disqualification can be read against the appellant inasmuch as the father-in-law of the appellant was not employed within the same Block and, therefore, the provisions of Clause-3(e) of the Guidelines would not be attracted in the present case. It is also the submission of the learned counsel that apart from this, the authorities have not taken care to record any finding about the income of the father-in-law being above Rs.12,000.00 for invoking the said disqualification.