← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/988/2025dismissed

Mala Sinha v. The State Of Bihar Through Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, The Additional Chief Secretary,

2025-07-17Mr. Justice Anil Kumar Sinha2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.988 of 2025 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10268 of 2024 ====================================================== Mala Sinha W/o- Shri Kedar Prasad Singh, Previously working as Pradhandhypika in Rajkiya Kanya Middle School, Chailitand Patna City, Patna.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.

Shri Deepak Kumar Singh, The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

Shri Yogendra Singh, The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4.

Shri Sanjay Kumar, The District Education Officer, Patna. 5.

Shri Manoj Kumar, The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Patna. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Rama Kant Singh For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Additional Advocate General 4 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 17-07-2025

1. Heard the parties.

2. The petitioner has filed the present contempt application complaining willful disobedience of the order, dated 09.07.2024, passed by this court by which the Respondent No. 3 i.e. Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, was directed to dispose the representation of the petitioner by passing a reasoned and speaking order.

3. Learned counsel for the State submits that order of the writ court has been complied and the representation of the

Patna High Court MJC No.988 of 2025(2) dt.17-07-2025 2/2 petitioner has been disposed by the Director by order, dated 02.12.2024.

4. In reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order is not speaking, however, he seeks liberty to challenge the order passed by the Director in a regular writ application.

5. Having considered the submission by the parties, this court finds that no contempt is made out against Opposite Party No. 2, accordingly the same is disposed.

6. However, the petitioner is given liberty to challenge the order disposing the representation of the petitioner by filing a fresh writ application.

(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) HarshPandey/- U