← Library
Patna High CourtL.P.A/481/2021dismissed

Shyam Bharti v. The State Of Bihar

2023-08-08The Chief Justice,Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.481 of 2021 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22116 of 2018 ====================================================== Shyam Bharti Wife of Ram Prakash Yadav Resident of Village- Khaira, P.S.- Bhairav Asthan, P.O.- Imadpatti, Via- Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Principal Secretary, Government of Bihar, Department of Human Resources (Education), Patna.

3.

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

The Divisional Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga. 5.

The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

6.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.

7.

The District Education Officer, Madhubani.

8.

The District Programme Officer, Madhubani.

9.

The Block Education Officer, Jhanjharpur, District Madhubani. 10.

The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kako, Block- Jhanjharpur, DistrictMadhubani. 11.

The Panchayat Secretary, Kako, Block- Jhanjharpur, District- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Bhubneshwar Prasad, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Rastogi (AAG 10) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 08-08-2023

1. The grievance in the writ petition was with reference to an appointment as a Shiksha Mitra which the petitioner claimed.

2. When the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers

Patna High Court L.P.A No.481 of 2021(5) dt.08-08-2023 2/2 (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 came into force, the appointment of all Shiksha Mitras in the State stood lapsed. This is the authoritative pronouncement in Kalpana Rani vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2014 (2) PLJR 665.

3. We find no reason to come to a different conclusion in the appeal.

4. The appeal stands dismissed.

(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ) ( Partha Sarthy, J) Spd/-Shiv U