Pradeep Kr. Jha Vs. the State of Bihar and ors

Pradeep Kr. Jha vs The State of Bihar and ors

Type Court Judgment Court Patna Decided May 12, 2012

~2 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/974705

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/974705
Court: Patna High Court
Decided On: May 12, 2012
Subject: Education

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Education

Key legal issue: Education

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Pradeep Kr. Jha

Respondent

The State of Bihar and ors

Excerpt

.....singh, r/o village & p.o.-matharahi, p.s.-baheri, district-darbhanga.8. mukesh kumar rai, s/o sri surendra nath, vill. & p.o. habidih, p.s.-baheri, district- darbhanga.9. ajay kumar rai, s/o hem chandra rai, vill. & p.o. habidih, p.s.-baheri, district-darbhanga. ..contemnor-opposite parties. ---------------------------------”12. 01.2012 heard the parties. the office is directed to trace the show cause said to have been filed on 3rd january, 2012 in the office and place it on record. since copy of the show cause was served upon learned counsel for the petitioner, we have heard the parties. it is admitted that the bdo has examined the cases of other appointees in terms of observation made in the last paragraph of 2 order of the division bench contained in annexure-1. according to the order passed by the bdo contained in annexure-b to the show cause, the appointment of others was found to be in order requiring no interference. learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the bdo has committed mistakes and his order is contrary to findings given by earlier bdo. in this contempt jurisdiction, we are not persuaded to sit in appeal over the order of the bdo and hence we dispose of this contempt application with a liberty to the petitioner that, if so advised, he may challenge the order of the bdo through representation or any other appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. (shiva kirti singh, j.) (aditya kumar trivedi, j.) pn

Full Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No.2235 of 2011 Pradeep Kumar Jha, son of Vivekanand Jha, resident of village & P.O.-Habidih, P.S.-Baheri, District-Darbhanga. .Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Sri Govind Narain Akhauri, S/o Name not known, Commissioner-cum-Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. Sri Ram Chandran, S/o Name not known. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

3. Sri Ram Chandra Mandal, S/o Name not known. The District Superintendent of Education Darbhanga.

4. Sri. Smt. Kanta Jha, S/o Name not known. Block Development Officer, Baheri, District Darbhanga.

5. Sri Surendra Nath Pandit, S/o Name not known. Block Education Officer, Baheri Distt. Darbhanga.

6. Sri Bajrangi Yadav, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Habidih (Middle) Prakhand Bahera, P.O.-Habidih, Distt. Darbhanga.

7. Shambhu Prasad Singh, S/o Ram Sevak Singh, R/o village & P.O.-Matharahi, P.S.-Baheri, District-Darbhanga.

8. Mukesh Kumar Rai, S/o Sri Surendra Nath, vill. & P.O. Habidih, P.S.-Baheri, District- Darbhanga.

9. Ajay Kumar Rai, S/o Hem Chandra Rai, Vill. & P.O. Habidih, P.S.-Baheri, District-Darbhanga. ..Contemnor-Opposite Parties. ---------------------------------”

12. 01.2012 Heard the parties. The office is directed to trace the show cause said to have been filed on 3rd January, 2012 in the office and place it on record. Since copy of the show cause was served upon learned counsel for the petitioner, we have heard the parties. It is admitted that the BDO has examined the cases of other appointees in terms of observation made in the last paragraph of 2 order of the Division Bench contained in Annexure-1. According to the order passed by the BDO contained in Annexure-B to the show cause, the appointment of others was found to be in order requiring no interference. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the BDO has committed mistakes and his order is contrary to findings given by earlier BDO. In this contempt jurisdiction, we are not persuaded to sit in appeal over the order of the BDO and hence we dispose of this contempt application with a liberty to the petitioner that, if so advised, he may challenge the order of the BDO through representation or any other appropriate proceeding in accordance with law. (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (Aditya Kumar Trivedi, J.) PN

Same Court & Year Patna · 2012 Same Parties Pradeep Kr. Jha vs The State of Bihar and ors Same Subject Education