Raushan Kumar v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12907 of 2023 ====================================================== Raushan Kumar Son of Sri Sadhusharan Prasad, Resident of VillageDasturpur, P.S. Tharthari, District-Nalanda. ... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director, Primary Division, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, , Patna Division, Patna. 5.

The District Education Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 6.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nalanda at Biharsharif. 7.

The Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block Teachers Selection Unit, Tharthari, District Nalanda.

8.

The Block Education Officer, Tharthari, P.S.-Tharthari, District Nalanda. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Amrit Abhijat, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Binita Singh ( Sc 28 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER 11-12-2024 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. This writ petition has been filed for directing the respondents to make payment of salary of petitioner with effect from 1.3.2018, the date of joining against the post of teacher in Government Basic School, Bari Chhariyari, Block Tharthari, District Nalanda.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the State raises preliminary objection and submits that the petitioner may seek remedy before the District Appellate Authority under Rule 13 of the Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020 which deals with the power and functions of the District Appellate Authority.

Patna High Court CWJC No.12907 of 2023(2) dt.11-12-2024 2/2

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute this fact.

5. It is settled law that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by the statute alone must be availed of. Since, the petitioner has statutory alternative remedy of appeal before the District Appellate Authority under Rule 13 of the Rules, 2020, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter in its extra-ordinary writ jurisdiction.

6. Accordingly, writ petition is disposed of with direction to the petitioner to file an appeal before the Appellate Authority. In the event such appeal is filed within four weeks from today, the same shall be disposed of with a reasoned order in accordance with law after hearing the parties within further eight weeks.

7. It goes without saying that if any question of limitation arises before the Appellate authority, the same shall be considered, taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was pursuing the issue before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

(Prabhat Kumar Singh, J) shashi/- U