← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/3551/2018disposed

Mahanand Bibhu v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-03-16Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3551 of 2018 ====================================================== Mahanand Bibhu, S/o Late Bishwa Mohan Sukul Bibhu, Resident of VillagePithaura, P.S.- Narpatganj, Via- Narpatganj, District- Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

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

2. The Principal Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Human Resource Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

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

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

5. The District Magistrate, Araria.

6. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Araria.

7. The District Education Officer, Araria.

8. The Block Education Officer, Narpatganj, Araria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

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

Mr. Hitesh Suman, AC to SC13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 16-03-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and State. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered by different decisions of this Court including the judgment in the case of Ravi Shankar & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2007 (Supp.) PLJR 337. He has also placed reliance on the decision of this Court dated 17.01.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4822 of 2017 and order dated 17.01.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5179 of 2017.

In view of the above, the writ application is disposed of

Patna High Court CWJC No.3551 of 2018(2) dt.16-03-2018 2/2 with a direction to the respondent District Education Officer, Araria to examine the case of the petitioner in the light of the judgment mentioned hereinabove and if the case of the petitioner is found similar to the case of petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 4822 of 2017 and C.W.J.C. No. 5179 of 2017, similar treatment should be extended to this petitioner also. Final decision in this regard must be taken within a maximum period of 60 days from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U