High CourtsDivision Bench(2024) 12 PAT CK 1250

Ramnath Prasad vs State of Bihar And Others

Patna High Court · Decided on 18 December 2024

HON’BLE JUDGES
K. Vinod Chandran, CJ · Partha Sarthy, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18159 of 2024

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 336 words

K. Vinod Chandran, CJ

1.

The writ-petitioners seek for a roving enquiry into the alleged embezzlement of public fund in the form of payment of salary to the illegally appointed teaching and non-teaching staff of Shri Chandi Sanskrit High School, Harpur Block, Bagaha, West Champaran. It is also prayed that an FIR may be instituted against the persons who are found to be guilty and that a Managing Committee be constituted to look after the affairs of the school. The respondents 12-16 are impleaded as the persons who are appointed illegally in the school.

2.

Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners contended that the appointments were made without the recommendation of the Headmaster.

3.

When we specifically queried as to the statutory provision or guideline which required a recommendation from the Headmaster, the learned Counsel was unable to answer. Neither is anything stated about such a mandate in the writ petition.

4.

Further, the school, its Managing Committee or the Headmaster have not been impleaded in the writ petition.

5.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner merely refers to a judgment of this Court in CWJC No. 7952 of 2022 (Surendra Prasad & Ors. v. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar & Ors.). Therein, a similar writ petition to cause enquiry into a school was entertained, but the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in D.N. Jeevaraj v. Chief Secretary, Government of Karnataka & Ors; (2016) 2 SCC 653 was also relied upon.

6.

In the cited decision, it was found that there was no ground to issue any writ, order or direction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The petitioner was merely granted liberty to file a representation. There is no binding declaration in the cited decision of this Court, according to us.

7.

We were of the opinion that the writ petition was misconceived and when we expressed our mind, the learned Counsel for the petitioners sought for withdrawal of the same.

8.

The writ petition hence would stand dismissed as withdrawn.