Archana Kumari Dutta v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1416 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 13205 of 2012 ====================================================== Archana Kumari Dutta W/o Shri Indrajeet Kumar Lal R/o Village, P.O. And P.S.- Parihar, District- Sitamrahi, At Present Ward No. 5, Dumra, P.S.- Dumra, District- Sitamarhi.
..... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Shri Rajendra Ram the Director Public Education cum Additional Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. Sri Jitendra Prasad, the Director Adult and Non Formal Education, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. Dr. Pratima S. Verma, the District Magistrate, District - Sitamarhi
4. Sri Manoj Kumar Singh, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Sitamarhi
5. Sri Sahajanand, the District Education Officer, Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : M/s Anil Kumar no. 1 and Pankaj Kr. Das For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.K.Mandal ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 18-12-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
In the present proceeding, the appellant is complaining for violation of order dated 14th September 2012 passed in CWJC No. 13205 of 2012 by which the Court has disposed of the case to add the name of the petitioner in terms of Resolution no. 27 dated 12th January 2010.
The Resolution has been annexed along with the supplementary show cause which provides that the person at least
Patna High Court MJC No.1416 of 2013 (5) dt.18-12-2015 2/2 to have worked for three years in Non-formal Education Project, will be considered to be added in the list.
The State in the show cause has specifically stated that the petitioner has work only seven months, in such view of the matter, the name of the petitioner was not added in the said list. This is the factual dispute cannot be looked in the contempt proceeding. The petitioner, if so advised, may take legal course as available in law.
Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.
Let the reply of the counter affidavit be kept on record.
(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U