← Library
Patna High CourtMJC/1998/2019allowed

Rajesh Kumar Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar

2019-07-24Mr. Justice Mohit Kumar Shah2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1998 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6991 of 2019 ====================================================== Rajesh Kumar Ranjan S/o Late Mithilesh Kumar R/o Village-Kachra, P.S.- Sour Bazar, District-Saharsa ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Secretary Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Director Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 4.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa 5.

The District Magistrate, Supaul 6.

The District Education Officer, Supaul 7.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Supaul 8.

The Executive Officer Nagar Parishad, Supaul 9.

The Block Development Officer, Supaul 10.

The Block Education Officer, Supaul ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Pramod Mishra For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey (AAG-15) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH ORAL ORDER 24-07-2019 The present petition has been filed for modification of the depiction of respondent no. 7 who has been depicted as District Programme Officer (Establishment), Saharsa, by mistake in the writ petition, whereas the same should have been the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Supaul. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the present modification petition is allowed and it is

Patna High Court MJC No.1998 of 2019(3) dt.24-07-2019 2/2 directed that the respondent no. 7 of CWJC No. 6991 of 2019, be read as the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Supaul.

Accordingly, the direction issued by the order dated 08.04.2019, is modified to the extent that the respondent no. 7, who is required to consider the case of the petitioner, be treated to be the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Supaul. (Mohit Kumar Shah, J) S.Sb/- U