Md. Reyaz Alam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12089 of 2018 ====================================================== Md. Reyaz Alam Son of Md. Bhuli Mian, Resident of Village-Lachirma, Police Station Paharpur, District-East Champaran. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 4.

The District Education Officer, Motihari, East Champaran. 5.

The District Programme Officer, Literacy, Motihari, East Champaran. 6.

The District Programme Officer, Programme Officer, Programme and Audit, Motihari, East Champaran.

7.

The Block Development Officer, Paharpur Block, East Champaran. 8.

The Block Education Officer, Paharpur Block, East Champaran. 9.

The Headmaster, Primary School Urdu, Lachirma, Block Paharpur. District East Champaran.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Adv.

For the State :

Mr. S.K. Ranjan, AC to GP-17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL ORDER 30-08-2022

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner claim absorption on the post of Block Teacher after having worked as Education Volunteer Talimi Markaz.

3. It is submitted that the Block Education Officer had recommended the name of the petitioner while sending the list of those who are working up to 21.12.2012, wherein the name of the petitioner is shown. However, the respondents did not take steps to absorb the petitioner.

4. Reply has been filed and it is stated that while the list had been sent in 2012, the petitioner stopped working on his own end

Patna High Court CWJC No.12089 of 2018(2) dt.30-08-2022 2/2 thereafter the Headmaster has informed by letter dated 2.06.2014 that the petitioner has abandoned his service and was continuously absent from December, 2012. In view thereof, it is stated in the counter affidavit that neither honorarium is required to be paid after December, 2012 nor he can be treated to be absorbed.

5. No rejoinder has been filed.

6. Keeping in view, the stand taken in the counter affidavit, it is apparent that the petitioner, whose name figured in the list of Talimi Markaz Volunteer, who worked up to December, 2012, stopped working whereafter, hence there is no occasion to take steps to absorb him.

7. The petitioner has virtually abandoned his service after December, 2012, he would, therefore, neither be entitled to any honorarium nor can be claim absorption.

8. The writ petition is misconceived and dismissed accordingly.

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J) Pravinkumar/- Item No. 19 U