← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/17388/2015dismiss for nonprosecution

Sumitra Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2024-01-04Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17388 of 2015 ====================================================== Sumitra Singh D/o Shri Ravinath Singh, Assistant Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Bela Navtoli, P.S. Babubarhi, D ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Bihar, Patna 3.

The Regional Deputy Director, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga 4.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani 5.

The District Education Officer, Madhubani 6.

The District Programme officer, Madhubani 7.

The Block Development officer, Babubarhi, District - Madhubani 8.

The Block Education officer, Babubarhi, District - Madhubani 9.

Bimlesh Kumar Singh Son of not Known, Presently Posted as Assistant Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Bela Navtoli, P.S. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

None.

For the Respondent/s :

Mrs. Archana Meenakshi, G.P.-6 Mr. Mahendra Pratap, A.C. to G.P.-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 04-01-2024 On call, no one appears on behalf of the petitioner though Mrs. Archana Meenakshi, learned G.P.-6 is present.

2. The writ petition has been preferred for quashing of letter no. 1473 dated 28.07.2015 issued by the Block Education Officer, Madhubani by which the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of the school.

3. The petitioner was in a haste. After getting the writ petition filed through Vijay Kumar, she took no objection from him and handed over the file to Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha.

Patna High Court CWJC No.17388 of 2015(2) dt.04-01-2024 2/2 However, within six months, she again took away the file from Mr. Manoj Kumar Jha and handed over to Mr. Rajiv Ranjan who chose not to appear before this Court on call.

4. Had the petitioner's counsel appeared and presented the case, the Court may have imposed cost as simply the petitioner was directed to hand over the charge of the school for which she filed the writ petition.

5. However, since no one has appeared, the case stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Neha/- U