Priyanka Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.699 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2132 of 2015 =========================================================== Priyanka Rai W/o Shri Shailesh Rai, resident at New Pattan Hatta, P.O. Purnea, P.S. Purnea, District Purnea.

.... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The District Magistrate , Purnea.

3. The Senior Deputy Collector, Purnea.

4. The District Education Officer, Purnea.

5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) , Purnea.

6. The Block Development Officer, Dagarua, P.O. + P.S. Dagarua, District Purnea. .... .... Respondent/s ========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mrs. Nivedita Nirvikar, GA 10 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 14-07-2015 This appeal is preferred against the order dated 5.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 2132 of 2015. The writ petition in turn was filed against a letter dated 19.1.2015 addressed by the Senior Deputy Collector, Purnea to the Block Development Officer, Dagarua, in relation to the social status and other particulars of the service of the petitioner as a Panchayat Teacher.

The argument advanced by the appellant was that all the proceedings have been initiated behind her back and on the basis of a representation made in Janata Darbar. The learned Single Judge

Patna High Court LPA No.699 of 2015 dt.14-07-2015 2/2 took note of the fact that the concerned authority who addressed this letter was competent and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Heard Sri Awadhesh Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant and Mrs. Nibedita Nirbikar, learned Govt. Advocate, for the respondents.

The writ petition itself was filed against a letter addressed by the Senior Deputy Collector to the Block Development Officer. The petitioner cannot be said to have suffered any detriment. It is only when an order to the detriment of the petitioner is passed, that he could have filed the writ petition.

It is brought to our notice that during the pendency of the writ petition, an order dated 31.1.2015 was passed dismissing the appellant from service. That can be challenged by the appellant by instituting a separate set of proceeding.

With the above observations, we dispose of this appeal. (L. Narasimha Reddy,CJ) (Anjana Mishra, J) mrl U