Gufrana Khatoon v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5105 of 2018 ====================================================== Gufrana Khatoon wife of Md. Mustaque resident of Village Kujratola Birgaon, P.S. Mahishi & District Saharsa ... Petitioner

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.

2. Director Jan Siksha Nideshalaya, Bihar, Patna.

3. District Magistrate, Saharsa.

4. District Programme Officer (Literacy), Saharsa.

5. Block Development Officer Mahishi District Saharsa.

6. Block Education Officer Mahishi PS Mahishi District Saharsa.

7. Chairman Vidyalaya Siksha Samiti Middle School Birgaon P.S.Mahishi & District Saharsa.

8. Head Master Middle School Mahishi P.S. Mahishi & District Saharsa.

9. Md. Gafoor Son of Md. Abul Hasan resident of Village Birgaon, P.S. Mahishi & District Saharsa ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr. Diwakar Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondents :

Mr. Apurv Harsh, AC to SC 28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MADHURESH PRASAD ORAL ORDER 12-12-2018 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appointment of respondent no.9 has been found to be bad in an enquiry conducted by three members committee and directions have been given to the authorities for making selection on the post of Talimi Markaj afresh considering the priority to which the petitioner is entitled by virtue of being a female candidate. This Court would find that the petitioner has approached before the District Public Grievance Redressal Officer, Saharsa and orders have been passed thereon which is annexure 9 to the writ petition. The petitioner has been advised to approach the Director (Education) or any other competent

Patna High Court CWJC No.5105 of 2018(2) dt.12-12-2018 2/2 officer for redressal of her grievance. Pursuant to such order of the District Public Grievance Redressal officer, Saharsa the petitioner has not approached the Director (Education). Having chosen such a forum, the petitioner has not taken steps pursuant to order passed by the District Public Grievance Redressal officer, Saharsa for redressal of grievances. In such a situation, there is no occasion for this Court to presume that the Director (Education) would not entertain petitioner's claim. At the moment, this Court does not find any reason to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As the petitioner has not demanded redressal of her grievances in compliance of order passed by District Public Grievance Redressal officer, Saharsa dated 29.8.2017, there is no demand and refusal so as to form the premise for exercise of writ jurisdiction.

The writ petition is dismissed.

(Madhuresh Prasad, J) Shashi U