← Library
Patna High CourtC. REV./421/2019dismissed

Lalit Mohan Kumar, v. The State Of Bihar.

2025-07-03Mr. Justice Rajiv Roy2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

CIVIL REVIEW No.421 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17455 of 2014 ====================================================== Lalit Mohan Kumar, Son of Shri Lalan Singh, resident of village - Hasanpur, Post Office and Panchayat- Chakand, Block and Police Station - Chaundauti, District- Gaya - 804404.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar.

2.

The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya, District- Gaya. 3.

The District Magistrate, Gaya, District- Gaya. 4.

The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya, District- Gaya. 5.

The District Education Officer, Gaya, District- Gaya. 6.

The Block Development Officer, City Block Gaya, District- Gaya. 7.

The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Gaya, District- Gaya. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate Mr. Ashok Kumar, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey (AAG-15) Mr. Vinay Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-15 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY ORAL ORDER 03-07-2025 Heard the parties.

2. The present petition has been preferred for the following relief(s):

"for reviewing the order dated 02.08.2017 passed in CWJC No. 17455 if 2014 by HMJ Sudhir Singh (as his lordship then was).

3. Though the Court may have sympathy for the petitioner as at the relevant time, he claims to be on the top of the list but the same was ignored, the fact remains that the post

Patna High Court C. REV. No.421 of 2019(3) dt.03-07-2025 2/2 of Siksha Mitra came to an end on 01.07.2006 when all those continuing as Siksha Mitra became Panchayat Siksha Mitra.

4. The claim of the petitioner is of the year 2003, in that background, the writ Court rightly passed the order. No relief in that background can be extended to him.

5. The review petition has to be dismissed. Accordingly ordered.

(Rajiv Roy, J) Adnan/- U