Veena vs. The State Of Bihar& Ors.
AI Summary
Get an AI-powered analysis of this court order
Order Issued After Hearing
Purpose:
Disposed
Before:
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha
Listed On:
14 Mar 2014
Original Order Copy
Get a certified copy of this order
Order Text
| B CON | IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA<br>Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.736 of 2013<br>In<br>Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16957 of 2009 |
|---|---|
| 1.<br>2.<br>3.<br>4.<br>5.<br>6.<br>7.<br>8. | ======================================================<br>Veena, wife of Sri Vikash Kumar Singh, Assistant Teacher, Rajkiya Kanya<br>Madhya Vidyalaya, Jamui, P.O. & P.S. Jamui, District Jamui<br><br>Petitioner/s<br>Versus<br>The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource<br>Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna<br>Sri Amarjit Sinha, Principal Secretary, Human Resource Department,<br>Govt. of Bihar, Patna<br>Sri Kamal Kishore Sinha, Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of<br>Bihar, Patna<br>Sri Mayank Barbare, District Magistrate, Jamui<br>Md. Khurshid Alam, Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger<br>Division, Munger<br>Sri Bashishta Narayan Jha, District Education Officer, Jamui<br>Deputy School Inspectress, Jamui, Now abolished<br>Smt.<br>Asha<br>Kumari,<br>Assistant<br>Teacher,<br>Rajkiya<br>Kanya<br>Madhya<br>Vidyalaya, Jamui, District Jamui<br>Respondent/s<br>====================================================== |
| App<br>For<br>For<br>CO | Appearance :<br>For the Petitioner/s<br>:<br>Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Adv.<br>For the Respondent/s<br>:<br>Mr. Sanjay Pandey, GP21<br>Mr. Manish Kumar, AC to GP21<br>======================================================<br>CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA |
ORAL ORDER
2 14-03-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
Having regard to the fact that the order of this Court dated 26.3.2012 in C.W.J.C.No. 16957/2009 in fact stood complied by convening the meeting of the Promotion Committee constituted under Bihar Nationalized Elementary School Teacher Promotion Rules, 2011, wherein it had sought to refer the case of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.9 to the competent authority because the school in question was not a Nationalized taken-over
school, rather a Basic School for which the aforementioned 2011 Rules could not have been made applicable, this Court must hold the present contempt proceedings to have become infructuous. The Director, Secondary Education infact by his order dated 28.10.2013 has ultimately decided the whole issue by holding that respondent no.9 would continue as an In-charge Headmistress till the alternative arrangement is made.
Learned counsel for the petitioner at this stage submits that first of all the order was complied belatedly and secondly, now respondent no.9 has already retired and therefore, the correctness of the decision dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Director, Secondary Education, should be made subject matter of this contempt application.
This Court in fact cannot enter into such exercise for more than one reason. In a contempt application it is only the order in question whose violation is alleged can be made subject matter of scrutiny. This Court on perusal of the order passed by the Director, Secondary Education and other materials on record is satisfied that whatever directions, in fact most of them being inapplicable on account of school in question being not a Nationalized School but a Basic School, has already been complied.
That being so, if the petitioner has now any further grievance arising out of the aforementioned order dated 28.10.2013 passed by the Director, Secondary Education or otherwise in relation to the post of Acting Headmistress of the school in question, she always will have a liberty to take recourse as may be available to her in law.
This contempt application is, accordingly, disposed of.
surendra/-