Rinku Kumari And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2153 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Ravindra Kumar @ Ravindra Ray, Son of Sri Ram Ray, Resident of Village- Hirouta Triyani, P.S.- Triyani, District- Sheohar.

2. Chunchun Kumari, Daughter of Keshav Prasad Sah, Resident of VillageBanghara, P.S.- Siwai Patty, District- Muzaffarpur.

3. Amit Kumar, Son of Nand Kishore Prasad, Resident of VillageBanghara, P.S.- Siwai Patty, District- Muzaffarpur.

4. Manish Kumar, Son of Ram Nandan Choudhary, Resident of VillageSirjan Pakri, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

5. Shatrughan Prasad Singh, Son of Raja Prasad Singh, Resident of VillagePaigambarpur, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

6. Manorama Kumari, Daughter of Sharan Singh, Resident of VillageNeknama, P.S.- Siwai Patty, District- Muzaffarpur.

7. Prahlad Ram, Son of Soman Ram, Resident of Village- Madaripur Karan, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

8. Satish Kumar, Son of Jagdish Paswan, Resident of Village- Chapra, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

3. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.

4. The District Program Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur.

5. The Block Education Officer, Minapur, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Member Secretary-cum-Gram Panchayat Secretary, Paigambarpur, Block- Minapur, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2201 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Rupa Kumari, Daughter of Shankar Prasad, Resident of Village- Turki, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

2. Sujeeta Kumari, Daughter of Chandshekhar Prasad Singh, Resident of Village- Kashipur Pakri, P.S.- Rajepur, District- East Champaran.

3. Babita Kumari, Daughter of Suresh Ray, Resident of VillageDharampur, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

4. Asha Kumari, Daughter of Ramprit Mahto, Resident of Village- Bali Garh, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.

5. Kavita Kumari, Daughter of Suresh Rai, Resident of VillageDharampur, P.S.- Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

3. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.

4. The District Program Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur.

5. The Block Education Officer, Minapur, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Member Secretary-cum-Gram Panchayat Secretary, Koili BlockMinapur, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2230 of 2018

Patna High Court CWJC No.2153 of 2018 (2) dt.16-02-2018 2/3 ======================================================

1. Rinku Kumari, daughter of Ram Lakhan Sah, Resident of VillagePrahaladpur, P.S. Musahri, District- Muzaffarpur.

2. Manoj Kumar, son of Jagdish Paswan, Resident of Village- Prahaladpur, P.S. Minapur, District- Muzaffarpur.

3. Pankaj Kumar Nirala, son of Rajendra Prasad Sah, Resident of VillageJamalabad, P.S. Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur..... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

2. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

3. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.

4. The District Program Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur.

5. The Block Education Officer, Minapur, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Member Secretary-cum- Gram Panchayat Secretary, Majhauliya, Block- Minapur, Muzaffarpur. ... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2574 of 2018 ======================================================

1. Manoranjan Kumar, Son of Subhash Chandra Singh, Resident of Village-Pagahiyan Ema, P.S. Saraiya, District-Muzaffarpur.

2. Shobha Kumari @ Shobha Kumari, Daughter of Raj Mangal Ray, Resident of Village-Dharampur, P.S. Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur.

3. Arvind Kumar, Son of Ram Ishwar Rai, Resident of Village-Mohanpur, P.S. Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur.

4. Sushil Kumar, Son of Harikant Jha, Resident of Village-Rampur Hari, P.S. Minapur, District-Muzaffarpur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

2. The Distict Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

3. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.

4. The District Program Officer (Establishment), Muzaffarpur.

5. The Block Education Officer, Minapur, Muzaffarpur.

6. The Member Secretary-Cum-Gram Panchayat Secretary, Mahdaiyan Block-Minapur, Muzaffarpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In CWJC No.2153 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.R. Pandey- Aag15 (In CWJC No.2201 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kameshwar Kumar- Gp17 (In CWJC No.2230 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav -Gp23 (In CWJC No.2574 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amish Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar -Gp20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

Patna High Court CWJC No.2153 of 2018 (2) dt.16-02-2018 3/3 ORAL ORDER 16-02-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and State. Mr. Amish Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that the case of the petitioners is covered by the decision of the Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No. 501 of 2017 dated 14.11.2017.

Counsel for the State is not in a position to controvert the above fact.

In view of the decision of the Division Bench passed in L.P.A. No. 501 of 2017 dated 14.11.2017, the writ applications are disposed of with similar terms and direction to the respondents to proceed in accordance with law after reinstating the petitioners. It is made clear that for the intervening period no salary will be paid to the petitioners. The salary of the petitioners would depend upon the final outcome of the enquiry conducted by the respondents so far as it relates to the petitioners. In view of the above, the writ applications stand disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- U