Ramesh Singh v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Review No.107 of 2015 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12551 of 2014 ====================================================== Ramesh Singh Son of Pitambar Singh, Resident of Village Makhanpur, PO- Pachrukhi, Police Station- Pachrukhi, District- Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.

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

3. The Union of India, through the Principal Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, New Delhi.

4. The National Council for Teacher Education, through the Member Secretary ( Wing-2), Hans Bhawan, Bahadur Sah Jafar Marg, New Delhi.

5. The Regional Director, NCTE, Eastern Regional Committee ( ERC), 15Neel Kanth Nagar, Naya Pali Bhuwaneshwar Orrisa.

6. The District Magistrate, Siwan.

7. The District Education Officer, Siwan.

8. The District Programme Officer ( Establishment), District- Siwan. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Kaushal Kishore Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Alok Kumar Rahi, A.C. to AAG-II ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESH KUMAR DATTA) 11-05-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

The review application has been filed seeking review of the order dated 23.02.2015 passed by this Court in a public interest litigation, being C.W.J.C. No.12551 of 2014.

In the P.I.L., the stand taken was that the respondents were not properly implementing the provisions envisaged under

Patna High Court C. REV. No.107 of 2015 (3) dt.11-05-2016 Section 25 (1) of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 and particularly with regard to the maintenance of pupil-teachers ratio as laid down in the Rules framed under the Act.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the order of dismissal is a cryptic order.

However, on a perusal of the same, it appears that the writ petition was found to be similar to another writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No.10496/2014, in which a separate order had been passed after hearing at length and considering the stand of the petitioner as also the detailed counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, this Court felt that no separate order was required to be passed in the writ petition and the same was dismissed by passing a cryptic order.

Thus, there appears to be no reason to review the order dated 23.02.2015 passed in C.W.J.C. No.12551 of 2014. In view of the above facts and circumstances, the review application is dismissed.

(Ramesh Kumar Datta, J) (Vikash Jain, J) U V.P.Sinha/-