Patna High CourtCWJC/8922/2014dismissed

Reeta Kumari @ Reeta Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-09-27Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8922 of 2014 ====================================================== Reeta Kumari @ Reeta Devi wife of Anil Kumar @ Anil Kumar Chandravanshi resident of village - Bahuaara, Post Pipara ( Mardan Raike), P.S. Karagahar, Distt. - Rohtas at Sasaram .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Human Resourcement Development Department, Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Rohtas, Sasaram

3. The District Padadhikari, Rohtas, Sasaram

4. The District Education Officer, Rohtas, Sasaram

5. The District Programme Padadhikari ( Jila Karyakaram Padadhikari ), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan ) Rohtas, Sasaram

6. The Prakhand Shiksha Padadhikari, Karagahar, Rohtas

7. The Head Teacher, Primary School, Thorsan ( P. ) Panchayat Thorsan, Kargahar, Distt. - Rohtas, Sasaram

8. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Thorsan, Prakhand Karagahar Distt. - Rohtas

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Thorsan, Prakhand Karagahar, Distt. - Rohtas, Sasaram .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ravi Kumar, AC to GP13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 27-09-2016 Heard counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the State.

Writ application has been filed by the petitioner to pay her salary since she was validly appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in Karagahar, District Rohtas.

Innocuous prayer made on behalf of the petitioner is not that innocuous as is sought to be made out. Counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents State authorities now indicates

Patna High Court CWJC No.8922 of 2014 (2) dt.27-09-2016 another picture that the petitioner had used an invalid, if not forged, kind of experience certificate and had got weightage of 20 marks for such appointment as Panchayat Teacher. On verification of the certificate the above fact emerged. The appointment of the petitioner was annulled. Direction was given not to take work. All these have happened in the year 2011 itself.

Since there is no order indicating that such decision has been set aside by any forum or authority, the claim for payment of salary is misplaced.

Writ has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) Surendra/- U