Patna High Court
Md. Jamal Uddin vs The State Of Bihar on 27 February, 2025
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.982 of 2024
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4321 of 2017
======================================================
1. Md. Jamal Uddin S/o Md. Lazim, R/o Village and Post- Maharshi, Mehi
Nagar (Nurani Masjid Mohalla), Nagar Parishad Ward No. 5, P.S. and
District- Madhepura.
2. Md. Zakir Hussain, S/o Md. Ali Hasan, R/o Ward No. 25 At and P.O.-
Bhirchi, P.S. and District- Nagar Parishad, Madhepura.
3. Md. Ziaul Haque, S/o Md. Hanif Uddin, R/o Village- Reshna, P.O.- Arar
Ghat, P.S.- Gwalpara, District- Madhepura.
4. Md. Ikramulan, S/o Md. Amrul, R/o Village- Reshna, P.O.- Arar Ghat, P.S.-
Gwalpara, District- Madhepura.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Bihar Education Project Council Beltron Bhawan, Shashtri
Nagar, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Project Officer -Cum -Programme Officer, Bihar Education Project
Council Beltron Bhawan, Shashtri Nagar, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Superintendent of Education Cum-District Programme
Coordinator (SSA), Madhepura.
6. The District Education Officer, Madhepura.
7. The District Programme Coordinator, Bihar Education Project, Madhepura.
8. The Additional District Programme Coordinator, Bihar Education Project,
Madhepura.
9. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
10. The District Account Officer, Madhepura.
11. The Block Development Officer, Madhepura.
12. The Block Development Officer, Gwalpara, Madhepura.
13. The Block Education Officer, Madhepura.
14. The Block Education Officer, Gwalpara, Madhepura.
15. The Block Education Extention Officer, Madhepura.
16. The Block Education Extention Officer, Gwalpara, Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Siyaram Pandey, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG- 13
Patna High Court L.P.A No.982 of 2024 dt.27-02-2025
2/4
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 27-02-2025
Re: Interlocutory Application No. 01/2024
1. The aforenoted interlocutory application has been
pressed by the learned advocate for the appellants for
condoning the delay of 54 days in preferring the present
appeal.
2. For the reasons stated in the application, the delay of
54 days in filing the present appeal, is condoned.
3. Interlocutory Application No. 01/2024 stands
allowed.
4. Heard Mr. Siyaram Pandey, the learned Advocate for
the appellants and Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, the
learned AAG -13 for the State.
5. The appellants were working as Talimi Markaz
Shikshak Swayam Sevaks under a scheme, on contract,
to be renewed yearly.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.982 of 2024 dt.27-02-2025
6. The claim of the appellants was that they had
continued to teach in Maktabs/Madarsas till 2009 when
their services were terminated.
7. It appears from the records that in the list of such
Talimi Markaz Shikshak Swayam Sevaks, the appellants'
names were not included, meaning thereby that they
were not selected, which perhaps was wrongly
understood by the appellants as their termination.
However, we have also noticed that the appellants came
before this Court in the year 2017 i.e. after eight years,
seeking a direction to the respondents to allow them to
work and discharge duties as Shiksha Swayam Sevaks in
the concerned schools/Maktabs/Madarsas.
8. The learned Single Judge rejected the petition on the
ground that the petitioners/appellants never held any
civil post but worked on contract under a scheme and,
therefore, such a prayer could not have been allowed in a
petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
9. Agreeing with the aforenoted logic and also taking
into account that the writ petition was filed by the
Patna High Court L.P.A No.982 of 2024 dt.27-02-2025
appellants eight years after their names were not
included in the list of candidates chosen as Shiksha
Swayam Sevaks for the year 2009, the appellants do not
have any case here against the judgment passed by the
learned Single Judge.
10. The appeal is absolutely meritless and is, therefore,
dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, ACJ)
( Partha Sarthy, J)
sunilkumar/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 28.02.2025
Transmission Date NA
