Sudha Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1098 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14195 of 2012 ====================================================== Sudha Kumari. Wife of Laxmi Nath Mishra. Resident of village - Chakdah, P.S.- Rajnagar, District - Madhubani.

.... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. Mr. Sridhar, The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. Mr. Shyamanand Choudhary, The District Education Officer, Madhubani.

4. Mr. Ramashraya Prasad, The District Programme Officer (Mass Education), Madhubani.

5. Mr. H. Rehaman, The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani.

6. Mr. Kamalnath Choudhary, The Block Development Officer, Rajnangar, Madhubani.

7. Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, The Block Education Officer, Rajnagar, Madhubani.

8. Mr. Ashok Das, Mukhia, Ranti Gram Panchayat, Rajnagar, Madhubani.

9. Mr. Jakki Ullah, Panchayat Secretary, Ranti Gram Panchayat, Rajnagar, Madhubani.

10. Mr. Chandra Bhushan Dwiwedi, Presiding Officer, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Madhubani.

11. Renuka Kumari. Wife of Pankaj Kumar Choudhary. Resident of village - Chakdah, P.S.- Rajnagar, District - Madhubani. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Anju Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Gupta, AC to GP-10 Mr. Sanjay Kr. Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 15-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioner has raised grievance that the Tribunal has not passed the order in terms of the direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 14195 of 2012. When this

Patna High Court MJC No.1098 of 2015 (4) dt.15-05-2017 2/2 Court has observed that the Appellate Authority has passed the order in exercise of quasi-judicial function cannot be a subject matter of contempt whereupon the counsel for the petitioner has brought to notice of this Court, order passed by the Tribunal, which is subject matter of challenge in C.W.J.C. No. 929 of 2016 in which the Court has stayed the order of the Tribunal. In such view of the matter, there is no scope for this Court to adjudicate the commission of contempt by the Appellate Authority. This petition does not survive and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U