Rakesh Hari vs The State Of Jharkhand
2021 Latest Caselaw 1398 Jhar

              IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
                                 W.P.(S) No. 3893 of 2020
             Rakesh Hari                                 ...      .... Petitioner
                                           Vs.
           1. The State of Jharkhand.
           2. The Deputy Commissioner, Sahibganj
           3. The District Superintendent of Education - cum - District Programme
              Officer, Sarva Shiksha Pariyojana, Sahibganj
           4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sahibganj
           5. The Secretary, Ambedkar Harijan Bhangi Primari School, North Colony,
              Sahibganj.
                                                         ...      ..... Respondents
        CORAM:       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DR. S. N. PATHAK
                     (Through: Video Conferencing)
        For the Petitioner               : Mr. Din Dayal Saha, Advocate
        For the Respondents-State        : Mr. Karan Shahdeo, AC
                                        ------

04/18.03.2021 Mr. Din Dayal Saha, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that petitioner is a Para Teacher who has been debarred from continuing in the service from the year 2007 orally without any show-cause.

Learned counsel submits that right from the year 2007 till date, he has made several representations before the authorities concerned but no heed has been paid to the said representation and no order has been passed.

Mr. Karan Shahdeo, learned counsel appearing for the respondents - State, at the very outset submits that this writ petition is not maintainable on the ground that the same has been filed after 13 years from the cause of action. Petitioner was debarred from continuing in service from the year 2007 and he has filed writ petition in the year 2020 i.e. after a gap of 13 years from the date of cause of action arose. Learned counsel places reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 and submits that writ petition is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed.

As prayed, put up this case after four weeks to enable the respondents to file counter affidavit.

(Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) RC/k