Shakuntla Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22695 of 2012 =========================================================== Shakuntla Kumari W/O Sri Prem Lal C/O Suryabhushan Kumar, Infront Of Poultry Farm, R/O Village - Habibpura, P.S. - Sohsarai, District - Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through The Secretary-Cum-Commissioner Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna
2. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda At Biharsharif
3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Biharsharif, District - Nalanda
4. The Area Education Officer, Biharsharif, District - Nalanda .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binit Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Neeraj Raj, A.C. to G.A.-8. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 14-09-2018 1.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State.
2.
The petitioner has filed the present writ petition for grant of B.A. Trained Scale and consequential benefit. The petitioner superannuated in 2004 and the writ petition was filed in 2012 and now we are in 2018. The reference to the decision of one Parmeshwar Prasad Gope in C.W.J.C. No. 12088 of 2012 cannot help the petitioner, the said decision is not final adjudication of the claim. In the said decision, the District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Nalanda was directed to take appropriate decision in accordance with
Patna High Court CWJC No.22695 of 2012 dt.14-09-2018 2/2 law.
3.
From the perusal of the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner has completed Intermediate from Hindi Vidyapeeth Deogarh. The qualification of degree from Deogarh is itself doubtful. It has been held out by this Court that such degree is of no use except for the purpose of proficiency in Hindi.
4.
Considering the fact that the petitioner has superannuated in 2004 itself and as such there is no point in granting any indulgence in the present case after 14 long years after superannuation. The Court does not find any merit in the present writ petition. 5.
Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Sanjeev/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date..../09/2018 Transmission Date NA