Rehana Praveen v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.6135 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12948 of 2012 ======================================================

1. Rehana Praveen D/O Md. Islam Resident Of Thatheri Bazar Road, Dumraon, District Buxar.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna, Namely Sri Amarjeet Sinha.

2. The Director Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna. Namely Sri Ajay Kumar Chaudhary.

3. Mr. Binod Singh Gugiyal, The District Magistrate, Buxar.

4. Mr. Raj Nilcant, The Sub Divisional Officer, Dumaraon, District Buxar.

5. Mr. Ajit Jaiswal, The District Program Officer, Buxar.

6. Mr. Kamla Kumar Gupta, The Block Education Extension Officer, Block Brhampur, District Buxar.

7. Mr. Dilip Kumar Sah, The Prakhand Pramukh, Block Brhampur, District Buxar.

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Radhika Raman ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ORAL ORDER 20-12-2017 From para 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the respondents on 15.12.2017, it appears that the District Education Officer, Buxar has directed the Block Education Officer, Buxar for permitting joining to the petitioner and it is stated that she shall be reinstated in pursuance of the order passed by this Court. However, respondents have stated that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment due to certain facts with regard to her not participating in the counseling which was

Patna High Court MJC No.6135 of 2013 (21) dt.20-12-2017 2/2 not brought to the notice of this Court by the respondents when the mater was taken up and, therefore, liberty should be available to the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Buxar to look into the mater and take action as may be permissible under the law.

From the aforesaid narration of fact, it is clear that the petitioner has joined the post.

That being so, now, no further action is required to be taken in the present mater.

In case the respondents feel that the petitioner was not entitled for appointment for any reason whatsoever, they are at liberty to bring this fact to the notice of the Court or the Tribunal in a fresh proceeding in accordance with law. With the aforesaid liberty, this MJC application is disposed of.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) Sanjeev/- U T