Vinod Kumar Manjhi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20411 of 2014 ===========================================================

1. Vinod Kumar Manjhi son of Punya Deo Manjhi, Resident of Village- Jamani Amnaun, Post- Rith, P.S.- Ekma, District- Saran (Chapra) .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Member, District Teacher's Employment Appellate

2. The District Magistrate, Siwan

3. The District Education Officer, Siwan

4. The District Program Officer (establishment) Siwan

5. The Prakhand Pramukh Siswan Prakhand, District- Siwan

6. The Block Development Officer, Siswan, District- Siwan null null

7. The Block Education Officer, Siswan, District- Siwan

8. The Headmaster, Government Middle School, Ramgarh Anchal- Siswan, District- Siwan

9. The Chairman Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Budh Marg, Patna- 1 .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vijay Kumar Mishra For the State : Mr. SC11- Ashok Kumar For Board : Mr Manish Kumar =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-05-2015 The Bihar School Examination Board in the supplementary counter affidavit, especially in paragraph 6, has stated that the certificate of the petitioner is valid. Paragraph 6 is reproduced herein below :

"6. That it is stated that petitioner has validly obtained the certificate from the answering board and wrong enlistment no has been mentioned in the mark sheet and requisite correction has been made in the official records of the answering board."

Patna High Court CWJC No.20411 of 2014 dt.06-05-2015 2/2 In view of the above, the impugned order contained in Annexure- 8 insofar as it relates to the petitioner is hereby set aside. Matter is required to be considered afresh because there is no dispute with regard to the degree and the educational qualification of the petitioner any more. In fact, petitioner is required to be restored back and removed from the list of suspect candidates. Let a decision be taken within a period of three months from the date of production of a coy of this order.

Writ is disposed of in terms of the above.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U