Reeta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13857 of 2013 ====================================================== Reeta Kumari Wife Of Daya Shankar Prasad Resident Of Village & P.O.:- Chakiya, P.S.:- Chakiya, District:- East Champaran At Motihari ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resource Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

3. The Secretary, Department Of Finance, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

4. The Secretary, Secondary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

5. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

6. The District Magistrate, East Champaran At Motihari

7. The District Program Officer, East Champaran At Motihari

8. The District Education Officer, East Champaran At Motihari

9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kesaria, East Champaran At Motihari ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sangeet Deokuliar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, GP-20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 20-11-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing on behalf of the State.

In the instant writ application there are certain factual disputes which cannot be decided in the present proceeding. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner was regularly working in the school. He further submits that Similar circumstance other teacher has been regularized whereas different yardstick have been adopted in the matter of consideration of this petitioner.

On behalf of the respondent stand has taken that the

Patna High Court CWJC No.13857 of 2013(13) dt.20-11-2018 2/3 case of the petitioner was not considered in view of the fact that authority of the school in question has not sent the case of the petitioner as working teacher so the case of the petitioner could not be considered.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the case of similarly circumstanced Smt. Rupam Mishra was considered and recommended by the respondents but in the case of this petitioner different yardstick was followed by the respondents.

In the present factual situation the court cannot decide the dispute whether the petitioner was working and she was entitled to approval of service as Assistant Teacher in the present school on the strength of continuous working as there are dispute as to the fact whether petitioner was regularly working or not. In the aforesaid circumstance, it would be appropriate that petitioner may file representation before the Director Secondary Education enclosing relevant document to establish that the case of Rupam Mishra and the case of the petitioner is similar. In case such representation is filed by the petitioner along with copy of this order, the Director Secondary Education will examine the claim of the petitioner and if it is found that the case of the petitioner is similar to the case of

Patna High Court CWJC No.13857 of 2013(13) dt.20-11-2018 3/3 Rupam Mishra, similar benefit should be extended to the petitioner and if it is found the case of the petitioner is distinguishable on fact, the Director shall assign reason for rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Final decision in this regard may be taken by the Director Secondary Education within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

With the aforesaid the writ petition stands disposed of. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) T.Kr./- U