Sujata Kumari v. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna Namely S

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2900 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5413 of 2017 ====================================================== Sujata Kumari, wife of Mithilesh Chandra Verma, daughter of Hari lal Das, resident of Koshi Colony, Bathnaha, P.O. Bathanaha, Koshi Colony, P.S. Jogbani, District-Araria. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna Namely Sri Rajnish Kumar Mahajan.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna namely Dr. Arvind Kumar Verma.

3. The District Magistrate, Araria namely Sri Himanshu Sharma.

4. The District Education Officer, Araria namely Sri Ashok Kumar Mishra.

5. The District Programme Officer (Estab.), Araria namely Sri Shubhash Kumar Gupta.

6. The Block Development Officer, Forbesganj, District-Araria namely Sri Amit Kumar Anand.

7.The Block Education Officer, Forbesganj, District-Araria namely Sri Ifthekhar Ahmad.

8. The Pramukh, Forbesganj District-Araria namely Sri Munna Rajak. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Baleshwar Kamat, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ram Vinay Pd. Singh, AC to GA-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 23-06-2023 Heard the parties.

The present petition has been preferred for the compliance of the order dated 7.5.2018 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5413 of 2017.

Today, on call, learned State counsel has presented the memo no. 334 dated 17.3.2023 issued by the District Programme Officer, Araria.

It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order passed by the State Appellate Authority

Patna High Court MJC No.2900 of 2018(3) dt.23-06-2023 2/2 dated 26.2.2018 in Appeal No. 457 of 2018 cannot be complied in his case as he was not a party to the said case. It is relevant to quote paragraphs 10 of the show cause on behalf of the opposite party nos. 3 to 5 which read as follows:- "If the vacancies were not earmarked and made available to the Employment committee then the appointment cannot be made".

This show cause was filed on 15.10.2018 has not been contested by filing any rejoinder petition.

In view of the order passed vide memo no. 334 dated 17.3.2023 issued by the District Programme Officer (Estb.), Araria, as stated above, no contempt is made out. If the petitioner so wants, he has the liberty to challenge the said order in a writ court.

The contempt application stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Ravi/- U