Om Prakash Singh v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.5354 of 2019 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19157 of 2019 ====================================================== 1.

Om Prakash Singh S/o Shivmuni Singh Resident of Village Vasant Bigha, P.s.- Karakat (Gorari), District- Rohtas.

2.

Santosh Kumar Singh S/o Shri Ram Kaleva Singh Resident of VillageParay, P.s.- Karakat, District- Rohtas. 3.

Sudhanshu Kumar S/o Banshi Dhar Singh Resident of Village Basant Bigha, P.s.- Karrakat, (Gorari), District- Rohtas.

... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar Through Mr. R.K. Mahajan, Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, New Secretariat, Patna. 2.

Mr. Anil Kumar Secretary Bihar Sanskrit Sikcha Board, through Director Middle Education, Bihar, Patna, New Secretariat. 3.

Mr. Suman Sharma District Programme Officer, Rohtas. 4.

Mr. Prem Chand District Programme Officer, Rohtas. ... ... Opposite Party/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Ray, Advocate For the Opposite Party/s :

Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Advocate For the State :

Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER 10-11-2023 Heard Mr. Mithilesh Kumar Ray, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, learned counsel for the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board. Learned counsel for the State is represented by Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha.

2. A showcause affidavit has been filed on behalf of the opposite party no. 2. With reference to the statement made in paragraph no. 7 thereof, it is submitted across the Board that the

Patna High Court MJC No.5354 of 2019(3) dt.10-11-2023 2/2 case of the petitioners for approval of their appointment have been considered by the Chairman of the Board, who arrived at a conclusion that the appointment of the petitioners are illegal and invalid and therefore the proposal for approval of their appointment was rejected, vide memo no. 1714, dated 25.08.2023, issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Board, the copy of which has been marked as Annexure-R4/1. 3.Considering the fact that in compliance of the order of this Court, final order has already been passed by the Chairman of the Board, the present contempt petition stands disposed off.

4. It is needless to observe that if the petitioners find aggrieved by the afore-noted order, they are at liberty to assail the same by filling appropriate application before the appropriate forum.

(Harish Kumar, J) supratim/- U