← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/7936/2015dismissed

Dr. Anjum Hashmi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-03-01Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7936 of 2015 =========================================================== Dr. Anjum Hashmi. Son of Dr. Latefur Rahman Quadri. Resident of village & P.O.- Pachahi, P.S.- Madhepur, District - Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Special Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

3. District Education Officer, Madhubani.

4. The Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, 5, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

5. Sri Suresh Chaudhary, Special Director and Chairman, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, 5, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

6. The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, 5, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

7. The Assistant Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, 5, Vidyapati Marg, Patna.

.... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Obaidur Rahman For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Anjani Kumar- AAG6 For Madarsa Board:

Mr. Rashid Alam =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 01-03-2016 Annexure-3 is the order passed by the new Chairman of Bihar State Madarsa Board, by virtue of which, Annexure - 1 has been set aside.

Petitioner wants quashing of Annexure - 3 on the ground that the order passed by the previous Chairman cannot be revisited or undone by the successor.

The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is rather attractive only on the surface of such submission. A deeper look would show that the previous Chairman was barred from taking

Patna High Court CWJC No.7936 of 2015 dt.01-03-2016 2/2 any policy decision by the State Government, obviously, for some reason. If that was the embargo created upon the previous Chairman, the decision taken by the previous Chairman, was a nonest decision in the eye of law and this is exactly what Annexure - 3 indicates.

Writ application has no merit, it is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) SKM/- U