IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6242 of 2009 NEETU KUMAR SNEHI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 2/ 19/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State of Bihar. The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on 24.5.2005. She delivered a caesarean child on 9.5.2005. She rejoined duty but was taken unwell while discharging duty, and, therefore, proceeded on leave after giving an application. On recovery she joined on 25.8.2005, which has been refused, compelling filing of the writ application. Reliance is placed on clause 15 of the Bihar Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 to submit that she was entitled to be considered for grant of 135 days of maternity leave. When power is vested in the Respondents by statutory provision, the power is to be exercised strictly in the manner provided for in the provision. If there is a procedure for maternity leave and the petitioner makes an application in pursuance of the same, the authorities are required to decide it in accordance with law. The refusal to accept her joining and to consider her application in light of the statutory provision is nothing but sheer abuse of power, which was not the purpose for which the power was given to the authority. Learned counsel for the State raised the issue of the writ application having been filed nearly four years after the petitioner was allegedly refused joining. Since the Court is disposing this writ application without counter affidavit, it refrains from making any further observation in the matter. If the petitioner had filed a representation, when her joining was being refused, all issues including of delay as urged by the State counsel is for the Respondent no. 4 to decide in accordance with law. The writ application stands disposed. AKS/ ( Navin Sinha, J.)