Jay Narayan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5863 of 2021 ====================================================== Jay Narayan Yadav, son of Shri Prameshwar Yadav, Resident of VillageChanda Ward No. 7, P.O- Khagraha, Resident of Village- Narpatganj, P.S.- Narpatganj, District- Araria ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through its Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

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

The Principal Secretary, Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 4.

The Director, Mass Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 5.

The District Education Officer, Araria ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Lalit Kishore (AG) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 04-02-2022 This matter is heard via video conferencing due to circumstances prevailing on account of COVID-19 Pandemic.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. In the instant petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:

(a) For issuance of any appropriate writ/s especially in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents concerned to absorb the petitioners on the post of Class-III and Class-IV under the respondents state as the petitioner are ex-Instructor of non-formal education on several grounds including that the State

Patna High Court CWJC No.5863 of 2021 dt.04-02-2022 2/3 Government has decided to absorb the non-formal educational supervisors on Class-III post.

(b) For issuance of any appropriate writ/s, rule or directions as Your Lordships may deem fit and proper to the facts and circumstances of the case as well as for which the petitioners may be found entitled thereto."

4. For issuance of a writ of Mandamus, the petitioner has to satisfy two ingredients, namely, establishing statutory/legal right followed by demand before the competent authority, both the ingredients are not forthcoming from the petition. Therefore, in the light of the Apex Court decision in the case of Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486. Para 9 reads as under:

"9. The High Court rightly dismissed the petitions. It is elementary though it is to be restated that no one can ask for a mandamus without a legal right. There must be a judicially enforceable right as well as a legally protected right before one suffering a legal grievance can ask for a mandamus. A person can be said to be aggrieved only when a person is denied a legal right by some one who has a legal duty to do something or to abstain from doing something (See Halsbury's Laws of England 4th Ed. Vol. 1, paragraph 122; State of Haryana v. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors. (1) Jasbhai Motibhai Desai v. Roshan Kumar Haji Bashir Ahmed & Ors. (2) and Ferris Extraordinary Legal Remedies paragraph 198."

The present petition is not maintainable.

Patna High Court CWJC No.5863 of 2021 dt.04-02-2022 3/3

5. Accordingly, writ petition is dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to prefer detailed representation along with judicial pronouncements, if any, within a period of eight weeks from today. If such representation is submitted, the concerned respondent-authority is hereby directed to decide the petitioner' representation/appeal within a reasonable time. (P. B. Bajanthri, J) uday/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 19.02.2022 Transmission Date NA