← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/11772/2025dismissed

Birendra Kumar Rai @ Virendra Kumar Rai v. The State Of Bihar

2025-07-23Mr. Justice Nani Tagia2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11772 of 2025 ====================================================== Birendra Kumar Rai @ Virendra Kumar Rai Son of Late Ram Chandra Rai, Resident of Village- Lagunaha, Ward No. 11, P.O. Pokhariya Rai, P.S.- Chanpatiya, District- West Champaran at Bettiah. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 2.

The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Budh Marg, Patna. 3.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur. 4.

The District Education Officer, West Champaran at Bettiah. 5.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), West Champaran at Bettiah.

6.

The Headmaster, Janki Devi Project Girls High School, Madhopur, BlockMajhauliya, District- West Champaran at Bettiah. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Pleader (26) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NANI TAGIA ORAL ORDER 23-07-2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned State counsel.

2. The petitioner, who is working as an Assistant Teacher in Janki Devi Project Girls High School, Madhopur, Block-Majhauliya, District-West Champaran at Bettiah, has filed this writ petition seeking a direction to the respondent authorities to extend him the same benefit that has been given to Smt. Sindhu Kumari Srivastava, who is functioning as an InCharge Principal in the same school.

Patna High Court CWJC No.11772 of 2025(2) dt.23-07-2025 2/2

3. Since the petitioner is an Assistant Teacher in the school where Smt. Sindhu Kumari Srivastava is functioning as In-Charge Principal of the school, the petitioner cannot draw a parity with the In-Charge Principal of the school, inasmuch as, the petitioner is only an Assistant Teacher in the said school.

4. In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be extended the same benefit that has been extended to the InCharge Principal of the school.

5. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. (Nani Tagia, J) Nilmani/- U