- (1.) THE present special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 7th January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the writ petition preferred by the Appellant has been dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay.
(2.) IT appears that the Appellant was engaged as Shiksha Mitra and was discharging her duties as such. She could not attend to her duties from 20th to 23rd February, 2008 on account of maternity leave. On 23rd February, 2008 an inspection was made by Naib Tehsildar and she was marked absent. She reported for duty but was not allowed and her engagement was cancelled on 26th March, 2008. She preferred Writ Petition No. 59711 of 2008, which was disposed of vide order dated 19.11.2008 with the direction that the District Magistrate to decide her objection/ representation The District Magistrate after considering the objection/representation vide order dated 8th May, 2009 had been pleased to reject the same. The order dated 8th May, 2009 was challenged by the present Appellant by means of the writ petition which was filed some time in January, 2011 i.e. after more than one year and eight months and the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the ground of inordinate delay as there was no explanation as to why the Appellant had approached this Court on such a late stage. The explanation given by the Appellant is that she was not served upon the order dated 8th May, 2009, which explanation was disbelieved by the learned Single Judge. We have heard Sri Ashok Pandey, learned Counsel for the Appellant, learned Standing Counsel who represents Respondent Nos. 1, 2 and 3 and Sri S.K. Verma, who represents Respondent No. 4 and have perused the impugned judgment and order dated 7th January, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and the documents filed along with it.
(3.) SRI Pandey, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the District Magistrate had not at all adverted to the explanation given by her and he had simply rejected the representation on the ground of certain alleged misdeeds of the Appellant's husband wherein attendance sheet was torn, fresh attendance of the Appellant was marked and the pressure was exerted on the Naib Tehsildar for changing the report. He further submitted that order dated 8th May, 2009 was not served upon the Appellant, therefore, there was no occasion for the Appellant to challenge the same before this Court at any earlier point of time. The submission is wholly misconceived. There is no explanation as to why the order dated 8th May, 2009 was not received by the Appellant as in the order dated 8th May, 2009, a copy of same has been endorsed to the Appellant and further it was passed after hearing the Appellant and, therefore, if the Appellant had not received the order within a month or so she could have made enquiry in the office of the District Magistrate regarding the matter. No such effort has been made. The view taken by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference.;