Patna High CourtCWJC/19927/2016allowed

Md. Mahfooz v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-12-22Mr. Justice Chakradhari Sharan Singh2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19927 of 2016 ====================================================== Md. Mahfooz, Son of Late Md. Khalid, Resident of village - Gharha, P.S. Pupri, District - Sitamarhi, the Secretary of Madarsatul Banat, Village + P.O. Garha, P.S. Pupri, Distict - Sitamarhi ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Special Directo, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Joint Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna

4. The Chairman of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna

5. The Secretary of Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Vidyapati Marg, Patna

6. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi

7. The Old Managing Committee of the Madarsatul, Banat At /P.O. Gardha, P.S. Pupri, District - Sitamarhi through Mashhood Azam, Son of Late Md. Sulaiman, Resident of village - Garha, P.S. Pupri, District - Sitamarhi ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Md. Anisur Rahman For the Respondent/s :

Mr. MADANJIT SINGH- GP20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER 22-12-2017 The order dated 24.5.2016, passed by one Vijay Kumar Pandey, Joint Director (Secondary Education) acting as an appellate authority under Section 28 of the Bihar State Madrasa Education Board Act is under challenge in the present writ application.

2. I need not go into the merits of the rival contentions being made on behalf of the parties for the simple reason that this Court in its decision dated 21.08.2017 passed in CWJC No. 19290 of 2016, has held the said Dr. Vijay Kumar Pandey not to

Patna High Court CWJC No.19927 of 2016(3) dt.22-12-2017 2/2 be duly appointed appellate authority under the Act.

3. Following the said decision, the impugned order, dated 24.05.2016 (Annexure-6) is, hereby, quashed.

4. The matter is remanded back to the newly appointed appellate authority under Section 28 of the Act for passing an order afresh in accordance with law. The party shall be at liberty to bring to the notice of the appellate authority all the facts for proper adjudication of the appeal.

5. This application stands disposed of accordingly. (Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J) arun/- U