Raju Baitha And ANR v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.901 of 2015 ======================================================
1. Raju Baitha, son of Sri Daroga Baitha, resident of village - Basmanpur Agarwan, Post Palanwa, Police Station Moffusil Motihari, District East Champaran
2. Mahesh Baitha, Son of Sri Bunda Baitha Resident of village - Godhwa, Post Palanwa, Police Station - Mofussil Motihari, District - East Champaran .... .... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, Primary Education, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari
4. The District Education Officer, East Champaran at Motihari
5. The District Programme Officer (Training RMSA & Literacy), East Champaran
6. The Regional Education Officer, Motihari Sadar Block, Motihari, East Champaran
7. The Block Development Officer, Motihari Sadar Block, Motihari East Champaran
8. The Block Education Officer, Motihari Sadar Block, Motihari, East Champaran
9. The Headmaster, Primary School Godhwa ( Kanya ), Godhwa Gram Panchayat, Motihari Sadar Block, Motihari, East Champaran
10. The Headmaster, Newly Created Primary School Machcha Mushar Toli, Ward No. 6, Sirsa Maal Gram Panchayat, Motihari Sadar Block, Motihari, East Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Dhurjati Kr Prasad ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 31-01-2017 At the very outset, learned counsel for the petitioner, in presence of Sri Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned GP14, submits that during pendency of the writ petition, the grievance of the petitioner, i.e. his appointment as Tola Sewak was redressed. However, subsequently it has been cancelled, which is
Patna High Court CWJC No.901 of 2015 (2) dt.31-01-2017 2/2 evident from supplementary counter affidavit and, as such, he makes a prayer for disposal of the present writ petition, so that the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy.
The prayer is allowed.
The writ petition stands disposed of. If so advised, the petitioner may avail appropriate remedy.
(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U