← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/12788/2023dismissed

Sarita Devi v. The State Of Bihar

2023-09-18Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12788 of 2023 ====================================================== Sarita Devi W/o Virendra Chauhan, Resident of Village- Jangaliya, Ward No. 18, Near Imam Bada, P.O. and P.S. - Gopalganj, Distt. - Gopalganj. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Principal Secretary Education Department Government of Bihar. 3.

The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

4.

The Principal Simultala Awasiya Vidyalaya, Simultala, Jamui, Bihar. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Dewanand Tiwari, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. AC to SC 28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 18-09-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and respondents.

2. The petitioner is aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order as contained in Memo No. 427 dated 28.07.2023 passed by the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Board').

3. By the impugned order, the representation of the petitioner to consider the admission of her son in Class VI in Simultala Awasiya Vidyalaya, Jamui has been rejected on the ground that the son of the petitioner had crossed the age of 12 years, therefore, he was not eligible to apply for admission in terms of Advertisement No. 116/2022.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute

Patna High Court CWJC No.12788 of 2023(2) dt.18-09-2023 2/2 that the date of birth of the son of the petitioner is 12.03.2011 and in terms of the Advertisement an applicant should not have crossed more than 12 years on 1st of April, 2023.

5. Since the son of the petitioner had crossed the 12 years of age on 1st of April, 2023, this Court is of the considered opinion that no case for interference is made out.

6. This writ application stands dismissed.

(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) SUSHMA2/- U