IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9971 of 2011 Savitri Sinha WIFE OF SRI VIJAY KUMAR VERMA, RESIDENT OF DAMODARPUR MATHIA, P.S. MALLAHI, DISTRICT EAST CHAMPARAN (MOTIHARI) Versus 1. The State Of Bihar THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY, BIHAR, PATNA. 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, FOOD AND CONSUMER DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DIRECTOR ADULT EDUCATION-CUM- ADDITIONAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA. 5. THE DIRECTOR MASS EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 6. THE CHILD DEVELOPMENT PROJECT OFFICER, CHANPATIA, DISTRICT WEST CHAMPARAN (BETTIAH) ---------------------------------- 2 06/09/2011 The accepted position is that when the counseling in the State Academic Research and Training Institution, Mahendru, Patna was held in the year 2007, petitioner did not appear or participate on the date in question. That was way back in the year 2007. Petitioner chose to come to the High Court for the first time in the year 2010 by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3813 of 2010 which too was withdrawn after some argument to pursue departmental remedies. The Court made no - 2 - observation with regard to the issue raised. Obviously, it means that the Court was not inclined to pass any categorical order in favour of the petitioner and it amounted to tactical withdrawal by the petitioner. Pursuant to that liberty granted to the petitioner, she approached the respondents and the respondents by order dated 11.02.2011 contained in annexure-10 decided to reject her claim categorically stating that since the petitioner did not participate in the counseling , she could not be accommodate on the post on which she wanted herself to be considered. Petitioner has now pulled out some documents to show that Pulse Polio programme was going on at that time and that was the reason that she was prevented in appearing for counseling. Submissions have been made that selections have already been carried out based on the persons who appeared for counseling. The excuse or the reason given by the petitioner for not participating in the counseling would be available to one and all. If others could participate, there is no reason why the petitioner did not - 3 - participate in the counseling. Even otherwise four years have gone past when the counseling was held and on that basis final selections have been made. There is no reason for this Court to interfere in this matter at this stage for re-opening the issue which has already been closed years ago. This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)