← Library
Patna High CourtCWJC/1341/2019dismissed

Angad Kumar Arzoo v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2019-08-27Mr. Justice Dr. Anil Kumar Upadhyay2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1341 of 2019 ====================================================== Angad Kumar Arzoo son of Sri Jageshwar Paswna, Resident of VillageParora, P.S.- K.Nagar, District- Purnea. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

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

3.

The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The District Magistrate, Purnea, District- Purnea. 5.

The District Education Officer, Purnea, District- Purnea. 6.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnea, District- Purnea. 7.

The Block Development officer, Anchal and P.S.- Amour, District- Purnea. 8.

The Block Education Officer, Anchal and P.S.- Amour, District- Purnea. 9.

Ritesh Kumar, Late Ram Bihari Das, Resident of Police Line, Purnea, Quarter NO. 13, P.S.- Town, District- Purnea. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Umesh NarayanDubey, AC to GP 27 For Resp. No. 9 :

Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 27-08-2019 The petitioner has challenged the order of the State Appellate Authority.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the State Appellate Authority has committed error in remanding the matter back to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority.

It appears from the order of the State Appellate Authority that there is no adverse order passed against this

Patna High Court CWJC No.1341 of 2019(3) dt.27-08-2019 2/2 petitioner. The State Appellate Authority has simply directed the parties to approach the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, where the appeal is now pending consideration. In view of the above, the Court is not inclined to grant any indulgence to the petitioner. The writ petition is dismissed as the same issue cannot be adjudicated at two places, i.e. one at District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority and the other in the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. (Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/- U