Patna High CourtCWJC/9324/2015disposed

Bechan Baitha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-12-06Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9324 of 2015 ====================================================== Bechan Baitha Son of Shri Methur Baitha, resident of Village- Hisar, P.S. Harlakhi District- Madhubani ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, H.R.D. Bihar, Patna

3. Director research and training Bihar, Patna.

4. District Education officer, Madhubani. null null

5. District Programme Officer Sharwa Shiksha Abhiyan Madhubani, DTMadhubani.

6. Principal Block Education and training institute Narar P.S.- Harlakhi DistrictMadhubani.

7. Block Education Officer Harlakhi, P.S- Harlakhi, DT- Madhubani.

8. Ramesh Kumar Pandey son of Sri Late Ram Ratana Pandey residnt of village and P.O. Sothigaon, P.S. Harlakhi District- Madhubani. posted Assistant Teacher Middle School Harlakhi, Madhubani.

9. Santosh Kumar Officer Assistant Diet Narar PS- Kaluahi DT- Madhubani. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Girijish Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 06-12-2018

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents.

2. The issue raised in this writ application has no more res integra, as the batch of writ application involving such issues was decided by this Court. The Court on consideration of the entire aspects of the matter held out that the deputationist has no right to appointment as BRCC or CRCC. The Court also noticed the amended guideline while dismissing the writ application. The decision of this Court was approved by the

Patna High Court CWJC No.9324 of 2015(2) dt.06-12-2018 2/2 L.P.A. Court, as L.P.A. preferred against the decision of this Court was dismissed.

3. In view of the above, the Court does not find any merit in the present writ application, accordingly, the same is dismissed.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) T.Kr./- U