Zeenat Ara v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16406 of 2016 ====================================================== Zeenat Ara D/o - Nisar Ahmad Aasi Mohalla - Topkhana Bazar, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Munger.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, District-Patna. 2.

The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, District - Patna.

3.

The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, District-Patna.

4.

The Director, Jan Shiksha, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

5.

The District Magistrate, District - Munger.

6.

The District Education Officer, District - Munger. 7.

The District Program Officer Sarv Shiksha Abhiyan, District - Munger. 8.

The District Program Officer Sakhsarata, District - Munger. 9.

The Block Education Officer, Block - Munger Sadar, District - Munger. 10.

The Head Mistress, Urdu Primary School, Topkhana Bazar, Munger Sadar, District - Munger.

11.

The Secretary, Lok Shiksha Samiti-cum-Chief Program Coordinator, District - Munger.

12.

Shakshartakarmi-cum-S.R.G. posted at district Shaksharta Office, District - Munger.

13.

The Program Coordinator, posted at district Shaksharta Office, District - Munger.

14.

Zeenat Parveen D/o - Barkat Kuraishi R/o Mohalla - Topkhana Bazar, P.S. - Kotwali, District - Munger.

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

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Avanindra Kumar Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Abdul Mannan Khan, Advocate :

Mr. Binay Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 27-06-2024 1.

Heard learned Counsel for the parties concerned. 2.

The petitioner has filed this application for holding

2/4 and declaring that in view of the Policy decisions of the Government of Bihar, the petitioner deserves to be re-engaged as Swayam Sewak in the respective Talim Markaz, wherein she had worked earlier i.e. Urdu Primary School, Topkhana Bazar, Munger Sadar.

3.

According to the petitioner, she joined on the post of Talim Markaz Shikshak Swayam Sevi in the year, 2009. The Talimi Markaz Shikshak Swayam Sevi is appointed under the scheme on contract basis for one year, as was done in the case of Tola Sewak and the post of Talimi Markaz Shikshak Swayam Sevi is not statutory and no recruitment rules are followed for their appointment.

4.

A Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, in the matter of Tola Sewak, in C.W.J.C. No. 18107 of 2016 (Raj Choudhary v. The State of Bihar and others), has held as follows: " The learned counsel for the respondents has raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability of the present writ petition and has referred to a judgment dated 17.08.2015 passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court in CWJC No.

12390 of 2015 as well as to a judgment dated 02.02.2017 rendered by the learned Division Bench of this Court

3/4 in L.P.Α. No. 2185 of 2015 whereby and whereunder it has been held that since the selection or engagement or hiring of the Tola Sevak is not a permanent appointment under the State, which is required to be considered under Article 226 of the Constitution of India as well as since the post of Tola Sevak is under a scheme, the same does not create any statutory right in favour of the petitioner, hence writ petitions in such matters as that of Tola Sevaks are not maintainable. Having regard to the aforesaid judgments rendered by a coordinate Bench of this Court as also by the learned Division Bench of this Court, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petition is not maintainable, hence the same is dismissed. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to take recourse to such other remedies as are available under the law."

5.

The aforesaid order passed by a co-ordinate Bench of this Court presided over by Hon'ble Single Judge in C.W.J.C. no. 12390 of 2015 has been affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court holding that the said writ petition is not maintainable.

4/4 6.

Taking into consideration the aforesaid judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court and the fact that Talimi Markaz Shikshak Swayam Sevi does not hold civil post as well as the same is not a statutory post, I also come to the conclusion that the present writ application is not maintainable. 7.

This application is, accordingly, dismissed.

8.

However, the petitioner is granted liberty to take recourse to such other remedy, as is available under the law. (Anil Kumar Sinha, J) rinkee/- U