Naresha Nand Thakur v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
Patna High Court LPA No.46 of 2015 dt.17-05-2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.46 of 2015 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1127 of 2014 ============================================ Naresha Nand Thakur S/o Late Kulanand Thakur, R/o Village- Jhakhara, P.S. Shambhuganj, District Banka .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner cum Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna
3. The Additional Secretary, Secondary Education Department, New Secretariat, Patna
4. The Special Director (Sanskrit), Secondary Education, New Secretariat, Patna
5. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna
6. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Boring Canal Road, Patna
7. The District Education Officer, Banka, District- Banka null null
8. The District Magistrate, Banka, District Banka .... .... Respondents ============================================ Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Maruth Nath Roy, Advocate Mr. Arvind Ujjawal, SC-4 For the Board : Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate ============================================ CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 17-05-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant, learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board and learned counsel for the State.
In fact, this was one of those cases where a cost was to be imposed upon the appellant for not coming before the court with clean hands. No interference is
Patna High Court LPA No.46 of 2015 dt.17-05-2017 warranted with the impugned order dated 23.01.2014, because the same is based on the rule in vogue and the procedure as well as eligibility, which is required for according recognition to a Sanskrit School. The relevant extract of the rules of 1993 is reflected in the impugned order itself.
Thus, we find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/NAFR U