Patna High CourtL.P.A/501/2018dismissed

Jai Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

2018-07-16Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad,The Chief Justice2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.501 of 2018 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12019 of 2017 ====================================================== Jai Kumar Yadav Son of Sri Vijay Kumar Yadav, Resident of VillageLakshminya, Daparkha Supaul, Police Station- Supaul, District- Supaul. ... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

3. The Director, Primary Education, Department of Human Resources Development, New Secretariat, Patna.

4. The Deputy Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna.

5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saharsa.

6. The District Education Officer, Saharsa.

7. The District Education Officer (Establishment), Saharsa.

8. The District Education Officer, Madhepura.

9. The District Project Officer, (Establishment), Madhepura.

10. The District Education Officer (Establishment), Supaul.

11. The Block Education Extension Officer, Supaul, District- Supaul. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s :

Mr. Ratan Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s :

Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey-AAG-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 16-07-2018 Delay of 17 days in filing of this appeal is condoned. I.A. No. 2850 of 2018 stands allowed and disposed of.

Considering the fact that even after physical verification of the Institute under the Scheme, namely, the Bihar Elementary Schools (Taking Over and Control) Act, 1976, the

Patna High Court LPA No.501 of 2018 dt.16-07-2018 2/2 school in question was not taken over and based on a Cabinet decision of the year 1993, the decision to take over the school was rejected, the learned Writ Court has dismissed the writ petition on the ground that once school is not taken over based on the Cabinet decision, no relief for payment of salary or other benefit can be extended to the petitioner.

In our considered view, the learned Writ Court, for the reasons, as are indicated hereinabove, has not committed any error in rejecting the writ petition.

The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.

(Rajendra Menon, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) P.K.P./- AFR/NAFR N.A.F.R CAV DATE N.A.

Uploading Date 17.07.2018 Transmission Date