Patna High CourtL.P.A/1599/2016dismissed

Prem Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-07-28The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1599 of 2016 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11166 of 2016 =========================================================== Prem Kumari, Wife of Anil Kumar Anal, Resident of Village- Taiyabpur, P.O. Taiyabpur, P.S- Desari, District Vaishali.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Commissioner- Cum-Secretary, Development of Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Secondary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Director Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, patna.

4. The District Teacher's Appointment Appellate Tribunal, District Vaishali at Hajipur through the Secretary.

5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

6. The District Education Officer, Vaishali.

7. The Block Development Officer, Block- Desarai District Vaishali.

8. The Block Education Extension officer, Block- Desari, District Vaishali.

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhikhanpura Block- Desarai District Vaishali.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lakshmindra Kumar Yadav For the Respondent/s : Mr. SURYADEO YADAV- AAG9 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 28-07-2017 The concurrent orders passed by the Block Development Officer and the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal and the order of the learned writ Court dismissing the application filed by the appellant, challenging her termination in the writ application in question is under appeal.

Patna High Court LPA No.1599 of 2016 dt.28-07-2017 The materials available on the record goes to show that the appellant had obtained 603 marks in the qualifying examination on the basis of which she was appointed, whereas the fact remains that the appellant had obtained only 324 marks in the qualifying examination. Considering this aspect of the matter, both the statutory authorities and the writ Court have rejected her prayer. We find no reason to make any indulgence into the matter. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. (Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Arvind/- AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 02.08.2017 Transmission Date