Navin Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No 1919 of 2017 =========================================================== Navin Kumar Thakur, Son of Sri Ram Balak Thakur, Resident of village - Sakra Bajid, P.O. Dholi, P.S. Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur

5. The Deputy Development Commissioner - Cum - Executive Officer, Zila Parishad, Muzaffarpur

6. The District Education officer, Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur

7. The District Programme officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur, District Muzaffarpur

8. The District Programme officer ( Surv Shiksha Abhiyan ), Muzaffarpur, District - Muzaffarpur

9. The Block Education officer, Sakra, District Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr Vijay Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Smt Shilpa Singh, GA 12 with Mr Sunil Kumar, AC to GA 12 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HONOURABLE MR JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 10-05-2017 Inter alia contending that any primary school level teaching in the State and the school in question, the medium of education should be a particular language based on the dominance of the language in the locality, petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking a mandamus in the matter of representation to a particular community for appointment of Teachers and a particular language.

Patna High Court CWJC No.1919 of 2017 dt.10-05-2017 2/2 2 The issues raised by the petitioner in this writ petition are nothing but issues legislative in nature based on policy decision to be taken by the administrative authority and it is not appropriate for this Court to enter into these matters of policy making. 3 The learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that on petitioner's own showing, the matter has been raised before the authorities and, therefore, the petitioner should prosecute the matter before the competent authority.

4 With the aforesaid liberty, the petition is disposed of. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 16.05.2017 Transmission Date M.E.H./- NA