Shobha Devi v. The Union Of India

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1793 of 2023 ====================================================== 1.

Shobha Devi W/o Dilip Kumar, Resident of Village- Basantpur, P.S. Mainatand, Distt- West Champaran, Bihar- 845306 2.

Rashmi Pathak, W/o Anuj Kumar Pathak, Resident of Village- Chengauna, Ward No. 6, P.S. Shikarpur, Narkatiyaganj, Distt West Champaran, Bihar845455 ... ... Petitioners

Versus

1.

The Union of India through the Secretary, the Department of School and Literacy, Shastri Bhawan, Dr. Rajendra Prasad Road, Central Secretariat, New Delhi.

2.

The State of Bihar through the Principle Secretary, Department of Education, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna, Bihar. ... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Anuj Dilbar Krishna, Advocate For the Union of India :

Mr.Radhika Raman, CGC Mr.Shambhu Singh, Advocate For the State :

Mr.Madhaw Pd. Yadaw (GP-23) Mr.Arvind Kumar, AC to GP-23 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER 25-08-2023 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the respondents- Union of India and State of Bihar respectively.

2. By filing this writ application the petitioners are seeking Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to provide the petitioners some job and opportunity to work as they are unemployed after having served for some time towards implementation of Sarva Sikhsha Abhiyan.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that these petitioners were serving as Anudeshika under the scheme of the Central Government known as National Literacy Mission

Patna High Court CWJC No.1793 of 2023(3) dt.25-08-2023 2/2 Authority. They worked on contract basis by an honorarium of Rs. 2000/- per month. They were, however, not engaged after 31.10.2008.

4. Learned counsel for the Union and the State jointly submit that this is a frivolous kind of writ application and in the given facts of the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed with cost.

5. Having regard to the aforementioned facts and circumstances, this Court is convinced that the petitioners have only been misled in filing this writ application.

6. No Mandamus as prayed may be issued, this writ application is dismissed.

7. Taking note of the fact that these petitioners come from poor financial background and they have been misled in filing this writ application, this Court is not imposing any cost. (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) tusharika/- U