The State Of Bihar v. Suresh Singh

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.467 of 2025 In Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.234 of 2025 ====================================================== 1.

The State of Bihar through Shri Amrit Lal Meena, the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

2.

Dr. S. Siddharth, The Principal Secretary now Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

3.

Dr. B. Rajender, The Principal Secretary, Department of Personal and Administrative Reforms now known as Department of General Administration, Government of Bihar, Old Secretariat, Patna. 4.

Shri Yogendra Singh, The Director Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.

5.

Anil Kumar, The Director, Mass Education (Jan Shiksha)-cum- Additional Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 6.

Sri Subodh Kumar Chaudhary, The Director (Administration)-cumAdditional Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development (Department of Education), Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 7.

Dr. Sanjay Kumar, The Regional Deputy-Director of Education, Saran Division, District - Saran at Chapra.

8.

Shri Aman Samir, The District Magistrate/Collector, Saran, District - Saran at Chapra.

9.

Shri Vidyanand Thakur, The District Education Officer, Saran, DistrictSaran at Chapra. 10.

Shri Vinay Kumar, The District Mass Education (Jan Shiksha) Officer, Saran, District-Saran at Chapra.

11.

Shri Dhananjay Kumar Paswan, The District Programme Officer, (Establishment) Saran, District-Saran at Chapra. 12.

Shri Ajeet Kumar Harijan, The District Programme Officer, (Literacy) Saran, District-Saran at Chapra.

13.

Shakuntla Kumari, The District Programme Officer, (Planning and Account) Saran, District-Saran at Chapra.

14.

Shri Kumar Vijay Pratap, The District Treasury Officer, Saran, DistrictSaran at Chapra. 15.

Shri Rajesh Kumar Ojha, The Principal, Vishweshwar Seminary, Chapra Town, District- Saran at Chapra.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

Suresh Singh son of Late Nathuni Singh, Resident of Village- Suhaigajan, P.O- SuhaiSahpur, P.S- Baniyapur, District- Saran at Chapra.

2/4 ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. P.K.Shahi, Advocate General Smt. Binita Singh, SC-28 Mr. Nishant Kumar Jha, AC to SC-28 For the Respondent/s :

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE) 30-04-2025 By the impugned order dated 11.04.2025, the appellant No. 5 has been issued notice in the contempt proceeding for not having complied with the judgment dated 26.11.2024.

2. The learned Advocate General, while pressing this appeal, has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment dated 26.11.2024 which was delivered on the first day when the same was listed and, therefore, the facts necessary for disposal of that case could not be brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge.

3. In fact, the reinstatement of the writ petitioners was dependent on their furnishing proof of having worked as Instructors for three consecutive years.

3/4 Even though the writ petitioners were taken in the employment after their retrenchment but later, on finding that the documents furnished by them for showing that they had worked for continuous three years was forged, therefore, their services were terminated.

4. Similar issues have been decided by a Division Bench of this Court which perhaps was not brought to the notice of the learned Singe Judge when the judgment was delivered on 26.11.2024.

5. This Court has further been informed that a review petition has been filed vide Civil Review No. 102 of 2025.

6. The Registry is directed to place the review petition before the learned Single Judge.

7. In all fitness of things, the learned Single Judge ought to proceed in the contempt proceeding only after the review petition is disposed off.

8. We, therefore, request the learned Single Judge to first decide the review petition and thereafter, if

4/4 necessary, take up the contempt proceeding against appellant No.5, if at all it is required.

9. The appeal stands disposed off.

(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ) (Partha Sarthy, J) Saurabh/Rajesh U