Binod Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16010 of 2012 ====================================================== Binod Kumar, Son of Sri Chandradeep Singh, resident of VillageKhairadih, Post Office- Bensagar, P.S. District- Rohtas. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director (Higher Education), Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Education Officer, Rohtas at Sasaram.

5. The Managing Committee, through its President Ram Kishore Singh Inter College, Dalmianagar, Police Station- Dalmianagar, DistrictRohtas.

6. The Secretary, Managing Committee, Ram Kishore Singh Inter College Dalmianagar, Police Station- Damianagar, District- Rohtas.

7. The Principal, Ram Kishore Singh Inter Colelge, Dalmianagar, Police Station- Dalmianagar, District- Rohtas.

8. The Teacher Representative (Member), Managing Committee Ram Kishore Singh Inter College, Dalmianagar, P.S. Dalmianagar, DistrictRohtas.

9. The Bihar School Examination Board through its Secretary Bihar, Patna.

10. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Bihar, Patna. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner : Mr. Arun Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. Ajay Sc11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL ORDER 17-08-2017 The matter has been placed at the request of learned counsel for the petitioner, pointing out that the remedy of the petitioner lies before the State Appellate Authority and not before the District Appellate Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram. After re-examining the provisions of Rules 13 and 14

Patna High Court CWJC No.16010 of 2012 (3) dt.17-08-2017 2/2 of the Bihar State School Teachers and Employees Dispute Redressal Rule, 2015, it is clear that the remedy before the petitioner is only to prefer an appeal before the District Appellate Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram. Hence, the order dated 17.07.2017 is not required to be modified.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further prays that the petitioner may be granted another thirty days time for filing an appeal before the District Appellate Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram. The petitioner is granted further time of thirty days from today for filing an appeal before the District Appellate Authority, Rohtas at Sasaram which shall be disposed of within the statutory period.

The order dated 17.07.2017 stands modified to the extent as indicated above, granting extension of time for filing an appeal.

U.K./- (Sudhir Singh, J) U