Sarita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16438 of 2019 ====================================================== Sarita Kumari, Wife of Krishna Ballabah Mihra, Resident of Husena Raghav, P.O. Baluka Ram, P.S. Vaishali, District-Vaishali (Hajipur), Pin-844113 ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

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

The District Education Officer, Jehanabad 4.

The District Programme Officer, Jehanabad 5.

The District Education Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur 6.

The District Programme Officer, Vaishali at Hajipur 7.

The Block Education Officer, Hajipur, District- Vaishali at Hajipur 8.

The Head Master, Primary School Sri Rampur Raydih, Block Hajipur, District- Vaishali ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rohit Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Binita Singh (Sc28) Mr. Vivek Anand Amritesh, AC to SC-28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 14-08-2019 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

The issue involved in the present writ application is whether the Lord Budha Mission Primary Teacher's Training College, Kartahan, Vaishali is a recognized institution. Mr. Rohit Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to Annexure-10 submits that in C.W.J.C. No. 6612 of 1991, the Division Bench of this Court issued direction for publication of result and as such he submits that after the

Patna High Court CWJC No.16438 of 2019(2) dt.14-08-2019 2/2 order of Division Bench, the result was published and the petitioner was declared pass.

The issue decided by the writ Court in C.W.J.C. No. 6612 of 1991 was only for the purpose of publishing of result and admittedly at no point of time the institution, in question, was recognized and as such the Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-7. Accordingly, the writ application is dismissed. So far as the error in the impugned order, as contained in Annexure-7, is concerned, the error is of clerical nature and does not in any manner affect the merit of the writ application. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) uday/- U