Disposed

Pankaj Sourabh Paul v. the Secretary,Education Dept.and

Patna HC21 Oct 2013CWJC/14280/2006

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Secretary of the Education Department to examine the petitioner's claim regarding bias in recognition and grant allocation and convey an appropriate order within three months, disposing of the writ petition and incidental application.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner was at liberty to file a representation before the Secretary of the Education Department for redressal of grievances, with a direction to respond within three months.

Pankaj Sourabh Paul Vs the Secretary,Education Dept.and — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14280 of 2006

¶2

====================================================== PANKAJ SOURABH PAUL SON OF HEM KUMAR PAUL HEADMASTER MISSION MIDDLE SCHOOL, BALJORA, TRIVENIGANJ, SUPAUL. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, patna 2. Special Secretary cum director, secondary education, bihar, patna 3. Deputy Director education (Primary school), Patna 4. District Education Officer, saharsa 5. DSE/District Education Officer, Supaul .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Daya Shankar Prasad Mr. Mathew N.Dev Mr. Ashok Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc9) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶3

12 21-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as leaned counsel for the State. Petitioner is the headmaster of Mission Middle School, Baljora, Triveniganj, Supaul which is a recognized Missionary school. He submits that the officials are biased in granting recognition and Government grant to this institution despite the legal notice sent to them on 29.8.2006. The petitioner also filed I.A.No. 4845 of 2010 in the matter.

¶4

Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent 4 stating that the Institution in question does not fall within his jurisdiction.

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.14280 of 2006 (12) dt.21-10-2013

¶6

2/2

¶7

In the circumstances, the petitioner is at liberty to file a representation before respondent no.1 for redressal of his grievances in view of different letters contained in Annexures 2 and 6 to the writ petition. Respondent no. 1 would examine the claim of the petitioner and pass appropriate order preferably within three months from the date of receipt of this order.

¶8

The writ petition as well as the I.A. is thus disposed of.

¶9

Shashi./-

¶10

(Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)

Pankaj Sourabh Paul v. the Secretary,Education Dept.and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pankaj Sourabh Paul v. the Secretary,Education Dept.and

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Balak Chaudhary Vs The State Of Bihar

Arbind Sharma and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Vickky Sharma @ Vikash Kumar and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Krishna Nandan Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anshu Ashish Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Jainandan Yadav Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.