Surendra Prasad, v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1318 of 2020 ====================================================== Surendra Prasad, Son of Ramashish Prasad, resident of Village- Gujrauliya, Police Station- Malahi, District- East Champaran, at present posted and working as Prakhand Teacher in Middle School Malahi (Boys), Block Areraj, District- East Champaran.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

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

2.

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 3.

The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari. 4.

The District Education Officer, East Champaran at Motihari. 5.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), East Champaran at Motihari.

6.

The Block Development Officer, Areraj, District East Champaran. 7.

The Block Education Officer, Areraj, District- East Champaran. 8.

The Member, District Teacher's Employment Appellate Authority, East Champaran at Motihari.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr.Vibhakar Kumar For the Respondent/s :

Smt. Shilpa Singh ( GA12 ) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PRABHAT KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 21-01-2020 Heard both sides.

The petitioner being aggrieved by the letter dated 04.06.2019 issued by the District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari(Annexure-11) filed this writ petition seeking relief for quashing of the aforesaid letter. It appears from perusal of the letter(Annexure-11) that the District Education Officer directed the Block Development Officer to initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner

Patna High Court CWJC No.1318 of 2020(2) dt.21-01-2020 2/2 under Rule 15(chh) of the Bihar Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 and also take appropriate action for recovery of the amount alleged to have been defalcated by the petitioner.

From bare perusal of the letter, it appears that District Education Officer has merely directed the Block Development Officer to inquire into the matter and initiate departmental proceeding against the petitioner, if the petitioner is found to have been appointed or have obtained training on the basis of forged certificate.

On the face, I do not find any illegality in the order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. (Prabhat Kumar Jha, J) Saurabh/- U