Patna High CourtMJC/799/2013disposed

Lalita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2015-02-11Mr. Justice Rajendra Kumar Mishra2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.799 of 2013 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2842 of 2011 =========================================================== Lalita Kumari, W/o Shailendra Kumar Singh, R/o 14F, West Anandpuri, Boring Canal Road, P.S. Sri Krishnapuri, District - Patna. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary Deptt. Of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Kamal Kumar Sinha, Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar.

3. Uma Shankar Prasad, Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, District Board, Vaishali.

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

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambastha, Adv. For the State : Mr. Tapu Uddain Khan, AC to SC 12 For the O.P. No.3 : Srinandan Prasad Singh, Adv. Manish Kumar.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 11-02-2015 The present contempt application is filed due to non-compliance of order dated 21.06.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 2842 of 2011.

Mr. Srinandan Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of opposite party no.3, submits that in compliance of order under contempt, appointment letter has been issued provisionally awaiting the approval from the Director of Secondary Education, Government of Bihar. As such, the order under contempt has been complied. On the other hand, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in the order of the writ Court,

Patna High Court MJC No.799 of 2013 dt.11-02-2015 2/2 under contempt, there was also direction to maintain the seniority of the petitioner but the appointment letter does not indicate the same. In reply, learned counsel for the opposite party no.3 submits that seniority would be fixed according to law. In view of the aforesaid submission, there is no need to keep pending this contempt application. Accordingly, this application is disposed of.

(Rajendra Kumar Mishra, J.) Shail/- U