Jaiant Kishore Narayan v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18438 of 2025 ====================================================== Jaiant Kishore Narayan, Son of Late Tej Pratap Narayan, Resident of VillageKerma Dih, P.S.- Kurhani, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Collector, Muzaffarpur.

4.

The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.

5.

The District Programme Officer (Elementary Education and Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Bihar Shiksha Pariyojana), Muzaffarpur. 6.

The Block Education Officer, Kurhani, Dist.- Muzaffarpur. 7.

Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, Rajkiya Buniyadi Vidyalaya, Kerma Dih, P.S. Kurhani, Dist. Muzaffarpur through the Sankul Incharge/Coordinator, Uchcha Madhayamik Vidyalaya, Kerma Dih, P.S. Kurhani, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

8.

The Sankul Incharge/Coordinator, Uchcha Madhayamik Vidyalaya, Kerma Dih, P.S. Kurhani, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

9.

Naresh Kumar, Sankul Incharge/Coordinator, Uchcha Madhayamik Vidyalaya, Kerma Dih, P.S. Kurhani, Dist. Muzaffarpur. 10.

Rajkiya Buniyadi Vidyalaya, Kerma Dih, P.S. Kurhani, Dist. Muzaffarpur through its Headmaster.

11.

The Headmaster, Rajkiya Buniyadi Vidyalaya, Kerma Dih, P.S. Kurhani, Dist. Muzaffarpur.

12.

Yugal Kishore Narayan, Son of late Tej Pratap Narayan, Resident of VillageKerma Dih, P.S.- Kurhani, District- Muzaffarpur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Vaidehi Raman, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Hari Mohan Bisht, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 04-12-2025 Heard Mr. Vaidehi Raman, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Hari Mohan Bisht, learned Advocate for the State.

Patna High Court CWJC No.18438 of 2025(2) dt.04-12-2025 2/3

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:- "i. For grant of an appropriate writ for quashing the constitution of Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti of Rajkiya Buniyadi Vidyalaya, Kerma Dih, within Kurhani Block in the Dist. of Muzaffarpur on 08.04.2025 in so far as the name of the Respondent No. 12 has been included as 'Donor Member'

of Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti of the School in the capacity of the representative of donors of the land to the school.

ii. For grant of an appropriate writ for a direction to the respondents to include the name of the petitioner as 'Donor Member' of Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti of Rajkiya Buniyadi Vidyalaya, Kerma Dih in place of respondent No.12."

3. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that despite the name of the petitioner having been selected by the Committee, his name has not been included in the Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti. The entire facts have been brought on record before the District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, but no decision has been taken, and, as such, the petitioner approached this Court by filing the present writ petition.

4. Learned Advocate for the petitioner submits that since there is a disputed question of fact with respect to the claim of donor member of the Vidyalaya Shiksha Samiti, hence

Patna High Court CWJC No.18438 of 2025(2) dt.04-12-2025 3/3 the writ petition ought not to be entertained.

5. Having considered the submissions advanced by learned Advocate for the respective parties and taking note of the fact that for redressal of the grievance, the petitioner has already filed a detailed representation before the District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.

6. This Court deems it fit and proper to dispose off the writ petition with a direction to the District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur to take up the representation of the petitioner, the copy of which is marked as Annexure 4 to the writ petition and bring to its logical conclusion, preferably within a period of eight weeks' from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

7. Suffice it to observe that in case the notice is required to the other stakeholders, the same must be done before passing any order.

(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U