Usha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19213 of 2010 ====================================================== Usha Kumari W/O Ashok Kumar Rai R/O Vill.- Saidpur, P.O.- Lagunia, P.S.- Patori, Distt.- Samastipur At Present Assistant Teacher, Primary School, Joripokhar Shiura, P.S.- Patori, Distt.- Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary, Human Resources Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

2. The District Education Officer, Samastipur

3. The District Superintendent Of Education, Samastipur

4. The Principal, B.Ed. College, Samastipur

5. The Block Education Officer, Patori, Distt.- Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 16-01-2015 Nobody appears on behalf of the petitioner.

Counsel for the State is present.

Heard.

On perusal of the writ petition it appears that the petitioner filed this writ application seeking a direction to the respondents to permit her to undergo B.Ed. training course conducted by the Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU).

Counsel for the State has drawn attention of this Court to paragraph 8 of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent no.5 stating the following:- "That it is stated and humbly submitted that the petitioner has already been sent for

Patna High Court CWJC No.19213 of 2010 (4) dt.16-01-2015 2 / 2 training. The answering respondents have prepared a list of the candidates who have recently went for training. The name of the petitioner finds place at serial No.1 to the said list."

It has therefore been contended that the grievance of the petitioner has substantially been redressed. That appears to be the reason for non appearance of the petitioner. Be that as it may, considering the relief prayed for in this writ application and the facts stated in the supplementary counter affidavit this Court is satisfied that the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed after having been allowed her to take the training. The application as such has apparently become infructuous. It is accordingly dismissed.

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/- U