Ratneshwar Prasad v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1151 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17223 of 2014 ====================================================== Ratneshwar Prasad S/o Rajshwar Roy resident of village - Saidabad, P.S. Raghopur, District - Vaishali.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Primary and Adult Education, Patna, Bihar Sri Arvind Kumar Verma 2.

The Collector Vaishali, Sri Rajeev Raushan 3.

The District Education Officer (D.E.O.) Vaishali, Sri Samar Bahadur Singh 4.

The Block Education Officer Raghopur, Vaishali Sri Sunil Kumar Singh 5.

The Block Development Officer Raghopur, Vaishali Sri Raghubar Prasad 6.

The Mukhiya of Village Panchayat Raj Saidabad Raghopur, Distt.- Vaishali Smt. Dhanwani Devi 7.

The Secretary (Panchayat Sewak) of Village- Raj Saidabad, BlockRaghopur, Distt.- Vaishali Sri Parman Kumar Upadhay ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Madhusudan Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey (Aag15) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 26-09-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The present application has been preferred for non compliance of the order dated 03.08.2018 in CWJC No. 17223 of 2014.

3. A supplementary show cause has been provided by the learned State counsel which is bereft of the number inasmuch as the only words opposite parties have been incorporated. This Court fails to understand why the details of the opposite party has not been incorporated in the show cause as it has become a habit of each and every office to incorporate opposite parties instead of

Patna High Court MJC No.1151 of 2019(4) dt.26-09-2024 2/2 giving the specific number.

4. The State counsel is cautioned to remain careful in the future.

5. The supplementary show cause has been put on affidavit by the District Programme Officer (Establishment) Vaishali and the learned State counsel submits that he has been authorized by the opposite party no. 3, the District Education Officer, Vaishali to put in the affidavit.

6. It contains the decision taken by the District Appellate Authority, Vaishali vide memo no. 152 dated 12.10.2023 by which, the claim has been rejected.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that though the copy has just been provided by the State counsel, in view of the fact that the case of the petitioner has been rejected, liberty be granted to challenge the same by way of writ petition.

8. Granting said liberty, the present application (MJC No. 1151 of 2019) stands disposed of.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U