Yamuna Rai v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17830 of 2024 ====================================================== 1.

Yamuna Rai Son of Ramdeo Rai, Resident of Village-Bawariya, Ward No. 7, P.O.-Kritpur Mathia, P.S.-Paharpur, District-East Champaran, Motihari. 2.

Janak Sharma, Son of Bhuteli Sharma, resident of Village-Batrauliya, P.S.- Paharpur, District-East Champaran, Motihari.

3.

Amar Paswan @ Amar Hajra, Son of Shankar Paswan @ Shankar Hajra, resident of Village-Kritpur Mathia, P.S.-Harsidhi, District-East Champaran, Motihari.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.

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

The District Mass Education Officer, District East Champaran, Motihari. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Government Advocate-5 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 27-11-2024 Heard the parties.

2. The petitioners prays for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus seeking a direction upon the respondent to absorb the petitioners after giving similar/equitable treatment, as has been proposed to be given to the similar instructors of NonFormal Education scheme.

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioners, while narrating the facts averred in the writ petition has submitted that identically situated person approached before this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 1463 of 2019 which came to be disposed of on

Patna High Court CWJC No.17830 of 2024(2) dt.27-11-2024 2/2 13.02.2024 with a liberty to approach before the concerned respondents by filing a representation. If the case of the petitioners shall be disposed in terms of the order aforenoted there is every chances, they will get justice.

4. Learned Advocate for the State referring to the averments made in the counter affidavit has contended that the petitioners have neither approached before any of the authorities, nor they have moved before this Court prior to the cut off date i.e. 26.02.2016, as is required to substantiate their claim for absorption.

5. Be that as it may, considering the nature of the relief sought for, this Court thinks it apt and proper to dispose of the writ petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed representation before the respondent no. 3, preferably within a period of four weeks from today, along with the documents in support of their claim.

6. In case such a representation is filed, the concerned respondent shall consider and dispose of the same by reasoned and speaking order, within a reasonable period of time. 7.The writ petition stands disposed off.

(Harish Kumar, J.) Jyoti Kumari/- U