Harihar Prasad Yadav And ORS v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10983 of 2017 ======================================================

1. Harihar Prasad Yadav, Son of Late Chutharu Yadav, Resident of VillageDudhaula, PO Dighia PS Nirmali, District Supaul.

2. Jai Prakash Karn, Son of Late Satya Narayan Lal Das, Resident of Village + PO -Sikarhata, Ward No. 15, Block Nirmali, District Supaul.

3. Laxmi Ram, Son of Shri Chulhai Ram, Resident of Village + PONirmali, Ward No.7, District-Supaul. .... .... Petitioner/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

3. The Directorate, Primary Education Government of Bihar, Patna. 4.

The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

5. The Director, Mass Education, Government of BIhar, Patna.

6. The District Magistrate, Supaul

7. The District Education Officer, Supaul, District Supaul

8. The District Programme Officer, Supaul District Supaul .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhaw Pd. Yadav-Gp23 Meera Singh, AC to GP-23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 17-01-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that earlier the Tribunal was non-functional and as such he has approached this court as there was no alternative remedy available. However, during the pendency of the writ petition, the Tribunal was made functional and in view of the

Patna High Court CWJC No.10983 of 2017 (3) dt.17-01-2018 2/2 aforesaid, he submits that the petitioners may be permitted to withdraw this application with liberty to approach the Committee constituted vide memo no. 2530 dated 4.10.2017. In case, the petitioners approach the Committee, the Committee is required to address the grievance of the petitioners in accordance with law within a period of sixty days from the date of filing of such representation. Since the petitioners were pursuing remedy in this court by way of filing present writ petition, the Committee shall examine the case of the petitioners, ignoring the delay if any in approaching the Committee. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) Ravi/- U