Patna High CourtL.P.A/485/2018dismissed

Kumari Aparna v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-07-16Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.485 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12889 of 2017 ====================================================== Kumari Aparna, Wife of Sri Manoj Kumar, Resident of Mohalla-Ward no. 4 Gaurabhgarh Kisanpur Road Supaul P.S.-Supaul, District-Supaual. (Bihar). ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

4. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa,

6. The District Education Officer, Saharsa,

7. The District Education Officer (Establishment), Saharsa.

8. The District Education officer, Madhepura,

9. The District Project Officer, (Establishment), Madhepura,

10. The District Education Officer, (Establishment), Supaul,

11. The Block Education Extension Officer, Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

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

Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey -AAG-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 16-07-2018 Delay of 13 days in filing of this appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 2750 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of.

Considering the fact that even after physical verification of the Institute under the Scheme, namely, the Bihar Elementary Schools (Taking Over and Control) Act, 1976, the

Patna High Court LPA No.485 of 2018 dt.16-07-2018 2/2 school in question was not taken over and based on a Cabinet decision of the year 1993, the decision to take over the school was rejected, the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that once school is not taken over based on the Cabinet decision, no relief for payment of salary or other benefit can be extended to the petitioner.

In our considered view, the learned Writ Court, for the reasons, as are indicated hereinabove, has not committed any error in rejecting the writ petition.

The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) P.K.P./- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 17.07.2018 Transmission Date