Sushil Kumar Chaudhary vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard Mr. Ajay Prasad, learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Amit Kumar Jha, learned Advocate for the State.

The grievance of the petitioner lies within a narrow compass to the extent that by the impugned order dated 30.04.2026 issued by the District Program Officer, Secondary Education at Muzaffarpur, contained in Memo No. 284, the entire financial and non-financial power of the school has been handed over to respondent no.6 in a most arbitrary manner.

Learned advocate for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner happens to be the most senior teacher working at Senior Secondary School. Notwithstanding the aforesaid fact, the respondent no.6 has been handed over the entire financial and non-financial power of the school that too without any show-cause notice or opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. He would thus submit that the impugned order is perverse and malafide.

Learned advocate for the State interjected and submitted that the alternate prayer of the petitioner made in the writ petition is to consider the representation of the petitioner dated 03.05.2026, the copy of which is placed on record as Annexure-P/2 series.

Having considered the nature of the grievance and the averments made in the writ petition, this Court deems it fit and proper to direct the petitioner to file a fresh representation before the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur preferably within a period of two weeks from today along with all the necessary requisite documents.

In case, such a representation is filed, the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur (respondent no.4), shall look into the matter and pass a reasoned and speaking order after giving opportunity of hearing to all stakeholders within a further period of eight weeks.

With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands disposed of.