Patna High CourtL.P.A/155/2014dismissed

Kumari Sunita Sudha v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2017-11-23Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,Mr. Justice Ajay Kumar Tripathi2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.155 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 12326 of 2011 =========================================================== Kumari Sunita Sudha Wife Of Chandradeo Ram Resident Of Village Biri Ranpal, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura .... .... Petitioner / Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

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

3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi Division, Saharsa

5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Madhepura

6. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura through its Secretary

7. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura

8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura

9. The Pramukh Panchayat Samiti Udakishunganj, P.S. Udakishunganj, District Madhepura

10. Prema Bharti, Daughter of Laxmi Narayan Bharti Resident of Village Laxmipur, P.O. Murlichandwa, P.S. Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura .... .... Respondents / Respondents.

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

For the Appellant/s : Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Madhukar Mishra, AC to SC 16. For the Respondent no.10: Mr. Bibhakar Tiwary, Advocate. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 23-11-2017 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the respondents.

Since there is a concurrent finding of facts, both by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority as well as the

Patna High Court LPA No.155 of 2014 dt.23-11-2017 2/2 learned single Judge, and nothing by way of startling material has been brought before this Court to belie those facts, no interference is warranted with the order of the learned single Judge. Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.

(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Dilip, AR AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 24.11.2017 Transmission Date N/A