Kailash Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.1875 of 2014 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19681 of 2013 ====================================================== Kailash Yadav, son of Late Moti Yadav, resident of village + P.O. Islam Nagar- Aliganj, P.S.- Chandradeep, District- Jamui, Retired Headmastercum-Convenor, Kasturba Gandhi Valika Vidyalaya, Islam-Nagar, AnchalIslam Nagar- Aliganj, District- Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna namely Mr. Amarjeet Sinha

2. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project, Patna namely Sri Rahul Singh

3. The District Magistrate-cum-Chairman, District Education Project, Jamui namely Sri Shashi Kant Tiwari

4. The District Education Officer, Jamui, Namely Sri B.N. Jha

5. The District Programme Officer, Surva Shiksha Abhiyan, Jamui, namely Sri Rajdeo Ram

6. The Block Education Officer, Islam Nagar-Aliganj, District- Jamui, namely Sri Umesh Mahto

7. Headmaster-cum-Convenor, Middle School, Islam Nagar-cum-Kasturba Gandhi Valika Vidyalaya, Islam-Nagar, Block- Islam Nagar- Aliganj, District- Jamui, namely Sri Sita Ram Yadav .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 30-06-2015 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

Having regard to the fact that the Opposite Parties have already complied the earlier order of this Court dated 29.11.2013 passed in C.W.J.C No. 19681 of 2013, by passing a reasoned order bearing letter no. 1324 dated 29.11.2014 of District Programme Officer, Sarv Shiksha

Patna High Court MJC No.1875 of 2014 (2) dt.30-06-2015 Abhiyan, Jamui, this contempt application definitely has become infructuous.

In that view of the matter, learned counsel for the petitioner wants to assail the aforementioned order before the appropriate forum/Court.

That being so, this application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforementioned liberty.

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Ranjan/- U