Sushila Kumari v. Shri M. Rama Chandrudu, The District Magistrate, Samastipur And ORS.
Patna High Court MJC No.2559 of 2014 (5) dt.23-06-2015
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2559 of 2014 In LPA 806 of 2013 ====================================================== Sushila Kumari, wife of Surendra Prasad Sah, R/O village- Madudabad, P.S. Mohiuddin Nagar, District- Samastipur .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Samastipur
2. Shri M. Rama Chandrudu, the District Magistrate, Samastipur
3. Sri Sanjai Kumar, District Program Officer, Samastipur
4. Md. Shamsad, Block Education Officer, Mohiuddin Nagar
5. Sri Ravindra Singh, District Program Co-ordinator, Samastipur .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dhananjai Kumar Singh For the State : Mr. Avnish Nandan Sinha, G.P.11 Mr. J.P. Shjarma, A.C. to G.P.11 For Bihar Education Project: Mr. Girijesh Kumar. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 23-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsels for the State and for the Bihar Education Project. The petitioner alleges disobedience of the direction of this court issued by order dated 22.1.2014 passed in L.P.A. No.806 of 2013.
The writ application filed by the petitioner was dismissed and thereafter L.P.A. No.806 of 2013 was filed by her which was disposed of by the order under contempt dated 22.1.2014 holding that the Court did find any reason to interfere with the order under appeal but only considered it proper to
Patna High Court MJC No.2559 of 2014 (5) dt.23-06-2015 observe that the instruction dated 6.5.2009 was not an empty formality to be observed at will and subject to need and availability of vacancies, the respondents were required to consider the appellant-petitioner for extension on contract basis in terms of the policy decision.
In the show cause filed on behalf of opposite party No.3, the District Programme Officer, it is stated that the claim of the petitioner has been considered and rejected by order dated 6.5.2015, which has been passed on the basis of a decision taken by the District Level Selection Committee at its meeting held on 6.5.2015. The said order refers to certain policy decision taken by the State Government with regard to qualification for appointment on the post which earlier was a contractual post and has been made a full time post of teacher and the reasons for rejection have been indicated in the order dated 6.5.2015.
In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that no contempt has been committed by the opposite parties. The contempt application is, accordingly, dismissed. V.P.Sinha/- (Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) (Anjana Mishra, J) U