Patna High CourtCWJC/22527/2014disposed

Veena Devi v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-10-04Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22527 of 2014 =========================================================== Veena Devi, W/O Ram Parikshan Singh, Resident of Village- Kabiyahi, P.O.- Bardaha, Block and P.S.- Babubarhi, District- Madhubani. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Madhubani.

5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.

6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhubani.

7. The Block Development Officer, Babu Barhi, District- Madhubani.

8. The Block Education Officer, Babu Barhi, District- Madhubani.

9. Chairman, Block Teachers Appointment Committee, Babu Barhi Block, District- Madhubani.

10. The Secretary, Block Techer Appointment Committee, Babu Barhi, DistrictMadhubani. .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gagan Deo Yadav, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. AAG10- P.N.SHAHI =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 04-10-2018 The issue raised in the present writ application has lost significance in view of the subsequent judgment of the Apex Court whereby the Apex Court has held out that the respondents shall conduct further efficiency test and following the judgment of the Apex Court, the respondents have taken a decision to provide further opportunity to the teachers who failed to clear the efficiency test.

2. In view of the subsequent development, the present writ application has become infructuous. It is disposed of accordingly.

3. In the event, the respondents have terminated the

Patna High Court CWJC No.22527 of 2014 dt.04-10-2018 2/2 services of the petitioner on account of failure to clear the efficiency test, the respondents are obliged to reinstate the petitioner following their own decision to provide further opportunity to the petitioner to clear the efficiency test.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Uday/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 05.10.2018 Transmission Date