Akhilesh Kumar Pandey v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13857 of 2015 ====================================================== Akhilesh Kumar Pandey Son of late Nawal Kishore Pandey Resident of village- Rampur Milki, P.o. Gangahar, P.s Ara Muffasil District BhojpurAra ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The State Project Director Bihar Education Project Council Shiksha Bhawan ,Rastrabhasa Parishad Pri 3.

The District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Ara,. 4.

The District Programme officer, Primary Education and sarb Shiksha Abhiyan Bihar Shiksha Priyojana 5.

The District Collector Bhojpur.

6.

The Block Education Officer Ara, Bhojpur.

7.

The co-ordinator, Sankul Resources centre Primary School Krisath BlockUdwantnagar, Bhojpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Maya Shankar Mishra For the State :

Mr. Jai Prakash Sharma, AC to GP 21 For the BEPL :

Mr. Girijesh Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 20-03-2023 Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. The petitioner has filed the present writ application for a direction to the respondents to renew his services on the post of Awalambak (also called as Shiksha Swayam Sewak) in Sankul Resource Centre Primary School, Karisath, Udwantnagar Block, in the district of Bhojpur, for the years 2013-14 and 2014-15.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was duly appointed on the post of Awalambak on

Patna High Court CWJC No.13857 of 2015(5) dt.20-03-2023 2/2 05.12.2011 and his services was renewed on that post for the year 2012-13, but his services was not renewed for the year 2013-14.

Learned Counsel for the State, referring to the supplementary counter affidavit, submits that the Awalambaks were appointed under the scheme of the Government of India and now, the scheme has been stopped from the financial year 2015-16. As such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in view of the fact that the scheme itself has come to an end. In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned Counsel for the State and the fact that the scheme has been closed with effect from 2015-16, no relief can be granted to the petitioner at this stage.

Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J.) Prabhakar Anand/- U √