Mahendra Rai v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.939 of 2016 =========================================================== Mahendra Rai, Son of Late Sone Lal Rai, Resident of Village- Mahua Singh Rai, P.O. and Police Station -Mahua, District Vaishali. .... .... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary-cum-Commissioner, Human Resource and Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

1.A. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.

2. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

3. The Block Development Officer Mahua Vaishali, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali.

4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Mahua, P.O. and P.S. and BlockMahua, District- Vaishali.

5. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Mahua Singh Rai, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali.

6. The Civil Surgeon, Vaishali, P.O. and P.S. Hajipur, District- Vaishali.

7. Ramanand Singh, Panchayat Sachiv Gram Panchayat Mahua Singh Rai, P.O. and P.S. Mahua, District- Vaishali.

8. Sri Rajesh Kumar son of Sri Nand Kishore Rai, resident of Village- Mahua Singh Rai, P.S. and P.O. Mahua, District- Vaishali. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Roy, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Virendra Kumar, A.C. to S.C. 13 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 10-04-2017 In directing that an order passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Vaishali should be implemented by all the authorities as the appellate order has attained finality, the learned Writ Court has not committed any error, merely because an implementation authority was created subsequently under the Bihar State School Teachers and Employees Disputes Redressal Rules,

Patna High Court LPA No.939 of 2016 dt.10-04-2017 2/2 2013 amended and brought into force with effect from 20.2.2013. Merely because the learned Writ Court did not relegate the petitioner in the original writ petition to take recourse to remedy available under Rule 14 and directed the competent authority to implement the order of the appellate authority, no error apparent from the face of the record or illegality warranting interference has been made in the matter.

Accordingly, finding no ground, the appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Sudhir Singh, J) P.K.P.

AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R.

CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 18.04.2017 Transmission Date