Subhash Kumar Suman v. The State Of Bihar And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2789 of 2013 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16860 of 2012 ====================================================== Subhash Kumar Suman S/O Late Anuplal Mandal, resident of village- Bhan Tekhti, P.S and District- Madhepura, at presant posted as Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Singheshwar, District- Madhepura. .... .... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through Amarjeet Sinha, Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar.

2. Prabhat Ranjn, the Regional Deputy Education Director, Koshi Division, Saharsa.

3. Malindra Kumar Sinha, District Education Officer, Madhepura.

4. Amerika Prasad, the District Programme Officer, (Establishment), Madhepura.

5. Prashant Kumar, the Block Education Officer, Singhesawar, Madhepura.

6. Sunil Kumar, the Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Singheshwar, DistrictMadhepura. .... .... Opp.Parties.

====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr.

For the Respondent/s : Mr. SC-24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR ORAL ORDER ........................

15-01-2015 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Sunil Kumar Mandal, learned SC-24.

It has been claimed that the order of the writ court has not been complied with. The writ petition was disposed of granting liberty to the petitioner to file a representation and, thereafter, the authority concerned was directed to examine and pass appropriate order.

In this case, by filing a show cause, an order has been

Patna High Court MJC No.2789 of 2013 (9) dt.15-01-2015 2/2 brought on record as Annexure-A to the show cause, which has been passed in compliance with the order of the writ court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to persuade the court that the order of the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Madhepura is patently illegal. In a contempt proceeding, it would be difficult for this Court to examine the correctness of the order of the District Programme Officer i.e. Annexure-A to the show cause. If the petitioner feels aggrieved with the order of the District Programme Officer, he would be at liberty to avail appropriate remedy.

With above observation and liberty, the petition stands disposed of.

(Rakesh Kumar, J) NKS/- U