Patna High CourtCWJC/4253/2013disposed

Md. Sarfaraz Alam v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2016-01-12Mr. Justice Shivaji Pandey2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4253 of 2013 ====================================================== Md. Sarfaraz Alam Son of Md. Iftekar Ahmad Resident of Village - Emansarai, P.O. - Shahpur Undi, P.S. - Patory, District - Samastipur. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar

2. The Director, Primary and Adult Education, Govt. of Bihar

3. The District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Samastipur through its Member

4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur

5. The District Programme Officer, Samastipur

6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Patory, District - Samastipur

7. The Block Development Officer, Patory, District - Samastipur

8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Chaksalem, Samastipur

9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Chaksalem, Samastipur

10. Md. Mumtaz Ahmad Son of Md. Esmail, Resident of Village - Shahpur Undi, P.S. Patory, District - Samastipur.

..... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mahasweta Chatterjee For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma, Sr. Adv. Dr. Mankeshwar Tiwari, AC to AAG 5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER 12-01-2016 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State.

In the present case, the petitioner is seeking appointment on the post of Urdu Teacher for Urdu Teacher School, Chaksalem, Hassanpur.

Claim has been made that respondent No. 10 having lesser marks and having no requisite qualification, has been appointed and the petitioner has wrongly been deprived of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.4253 of 2013 (2) dt.12-01-2016 2/2 same.

The counsel for the State has pointed out that already the appeal is pending before the Appellate Authority, vide Appeal No. 275 of 2009 and Appeal No. 371 of 2009.

In such view of the matter, this Court is not required to go into the merit of the case.

It has been informed by the counsel for the petitioner that there is no Presiding Officer at present. As and when the Presiding Officer takes charge there, he will decide the case without unnecessary delay preferably, within four months from the date of his joining. With the above observation/direction, this petition is disposed of.

(Shivaji Pandey, J) Mahesh/- U