Patna High Court
Savitri Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 2 February, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4930 of 2021
======================================================
1. Savitri Devi wife of Sanjay Kumar Pandey resident of Village- Sadhanpura,
P.O.- Rampur Bheriyahi, P.S.- Kathaiya, District- Muzaffarpur.
2. Sanjay Kumar Pandey son of Prahalad Pandey resident of Village-
Sadhanpura, P.O.- Rampur Bheriyahi, P.S.- Kathaiya, District- Muzaffarpur.
.. ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
6. The District Programme Officer (Literacy), Muzaffarpur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Lal Mani Sharma
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, GP 20
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 02-02-2022
The matter is heard via video conferencing due to
circumstances prevailing on account of the COVID-19 pandemic.
2. State counsel accepts notice for the respondents.
3. In the instant petition, petitioners have prayed for the
following relief/reliefs:
"That the petitioners pray for issuance of a writ
preferably in the nature of Mandamus commanding
and directing the Respondents concerned to consider
the claim/case of the petitioners properly for their
absorptions on any suitable class-IV posts and issue
appointment letter to the petitioners being Non Formal
Education Instructor who have worked for more than 3
years in the District of Muzaffarpur in view of the
direction of this Hon'ble Court as well as Hon'ble
Patna High Court CWJC No.4930 of 2021 dt.02-02-2022
Apex Court as several similarly situated persons have
been absorbed in regular services but case of the
petitioners is being discriminated. And/or any other
writ/writs, order/orders, direction/directions for
granting any other relief or reliefs for which the
petitioner is found entitled to, in the facts and
circumstances."
4. In the present petition, petitioners have sought for the
issuance of writ of Mandamus. They have not made out a case for
the reasons that they have not established legal/statutory right
followed by demand before the competent authority.
5. In the light of Apex Court decision in the case of Mani
Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana reported in (1977) 1 SCC 486, the
present petition is not maintainable, however, in the interest of
litigants, petitioners are at liberty to approach the concerned
respondent in submitting a detailed representation along with
judicial pronouncements, if any within a period of eight weeks from
the date of receipt of this order. The concerned respondent is hereby
directed to decide it within a period of four months from the date of
such representation.
6. With the above observations, writ petitions stands
disposed off.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date
