Manju Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19740 of 2024 ====================================================== Manju Kumari D/o Krishna Prasad @ Sri Krishna Prasad Resident of VillageBaijda, P.S.-Fatehpur District-Gaya. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Bihar 2.

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

3.

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The District Education Officer, Nawada.

5.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Nawada. 6.

The B.D.O. Meksaur, Nawada.

7.

The Block Education Officer, Meksaur, Nawada. 8.

The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Tetariya, Meksaur, Nawada. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Ashok Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s :

AC to GA-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SATYAVRAT VERMA ORAL ORDER 01-07-2025 1.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned AC to GA-3.

2.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, at the outset, submits that from perusal of the prayer made in the instant writ application, it would manifest that the instant writ application has been filed for quashing Memo No. 494 dated 30-9-2019 issued by the Block Development Officer, Meksaur, Nawada, whereby the petitioner has been stopped from making her attendance in Upgraded Middle School, Sheikhwara, Meksaur, Nawad.

Patna High Court CWJC No.19740 of 2024(2) dt.01-07-2025 2/2 3.

The learned State counsel submits that the order is appealable, but then petitioner has rushed to this Court. It is further submitted that the order by which the petitioner is aggrieved is dated 30-9-2019 and the instant writ application has been filed in the Year 2024 without availing the alternative remedy.

4.

The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner is not in a position to rebut the submission of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State. 5.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, the Court is not inclined to entertain the writ application as petitioner has alternative remedy against the order impugned in the instant writ application, as such the instant writ application is dismissed.

6.

However, the dismissal of instant writ application will not preclude the petitioner from availing her remedy in accordance with law.

(Satyavrat Verma, J) Sumit/- U