Sanjeet Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4081 of 2021 ====================================================== SANJEET KUMAR son of Sudhansu Prasad Yadav, Resident of VillageAjhaur, P.S.- Neemachadpura, District- Begusarai ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 2.

The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna 3.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger 4.

The District Magistrate, Begusarai 5.

The District Education Office, Begusarai 6.

The District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Begusarai 7.

The Block Development Officer cum Secretary, Prakhand Teacher Niyozan, Ekare, Begusarai 8.

The Block Education Officer, Begusarai 9.

The Head Master, Upgrade Middle School, Fatehpur, Block and DistrictBegusarai ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Nakul Kumar Jamuar For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Prabhakar Jha, GP-27 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 19-06-2024 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner filed an application for his appointment before the learned District Teacher Appellate Tribunal, Begusarai bearing appeal no.1/2018 and order passed on 11.10.2018 in which the learned Tribunal direction the respondent B.D.O., Begusarai to take necessary decision regarding the employment of the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.4081 of 2021(4) dt.19-06-2024 2/2 against the vacant seat after dismissal of one Priyadarshi Kumar and further to inform to the Tribunal and sent a copy of the order dated 11.10.2018 (Annexure-3 to the writ application) to all the concerned Authorities. It is submitted that no action has yet been taken by the concerned Authorities in this regard and aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has approached this Court. 3.

Considering the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner, in my view, no interference of this Court is required to carry out execution of an order passed by a concerned Authority and the proper remedy available to the petitioner would be to file an application before the concerned Tribunal for compliance of the order dated 11.10.2018.

4.

Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of. (Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) pallavi/- U