Ashok Kumar Gupta And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17798 of 2018 ====================================================== 1.

Ashok Kumar Gupta, Son of Tulsi Sah, resident of Village- Metdhara, P.S. Chainpur, District- Kaimur.

2.

Ram Nihor Chauhan, S/o Baiju Chauhan, R/o Village- Hata, P.S. Chainpur, District- Kaimur.

3.

Ramashish Bishwakarma, S/o late Kishore Bishwakarma, resident of Village- Babhaniya, Post + P.S.- Chand, District- Kaimur. 4.

Dihal Ram, S/o Ram Deb Ram, Resident of Village- Narsinghpur, P.O. Badhauna, P.S. Chainpur, District- Kaimur.

5.

Ram Sanehi Prasad, S/o Sri Mohan Prasad, R/o Village- Hargaon, P.O. Badhauana, P.S. Chainpur, District-Kaimur.

6.

Dinanath Chauhan, S/o Munshi Chauhan, Resident of Village- Hata, P.S. Chainpur, District- Kaimur.

... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources and Development, Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

The Director, Public Education, Bihar, Patna. 5.

The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabua.

6.

The Project Officer Adult and Non Formal Education, Kaimur at Bhabua. 7.

The District Public Education Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Pradhan Murli Manohar Prasad, Advocate Mr. Raju Kumar Goswami, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, A.C. to A.A.G.-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 21-05-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are governed by the judgment passed in L.P.A.

Patna High Court CWJC No.17798 of 2018(2) dt.21-05-2019 2/2 Nos.1047 of 2017 and 1489 of 2011.

In such view of the matter, let the respondent authorities examine the case of the present petitioners vis-a-vis the case of the respondents of L.P.A. Nos. 1047 of 2017 and 1489 of 2011 and if it is found that the facts, prayer and law of all the cases are identical, in such circumstance, the present petitioners will be given the same benefit as has been given to the respondents of aforesaid L.P.As.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of.

It is clarified that this Court is not giving any opinion on the merit of the case.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) pawan/- U