Disposed

Md. Ekbal Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC4 Dec 2017CWJC/1057/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court disposed of a writ petition challenging staff appointment or decision by a Madarsa Board. The court directed the Board to reconsider the matter within 60 days, ensuring notice is given to affected respondents before adverse orders, without expressing an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Director to take final decision within 60 days; notice required before adverse orders against respondents 5-8.

Md. Ekbal Ahmad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1057 of 2017

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Md. Ekbal Ahmad, Son of Israil Ahmad, resident of Village- Nauka Dih, P.S.- Barahat, District- Banka.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary-cum-Chairman, Human Resources Development Department, Sachivalaya, Patna.

¶7

The District Education Officer, Banka.

¶8

The Secretary, Bihar State Madarsa Education Board, Patna.

¶9

The Secretary, Madarsa, Islamia Kaithatikar P.O. Narayanpur, VisBarahat, District- P.S.- Barahat, District- Banka.

¶10

The Md. Kafil Ahmad, Son of Md. Nasiruddin, resident of VillageLakhanpur, P.O.- Narayanpur P.S.- Barahat, District- Banka.

¶11

Md. Arfat, Son of Md. Kashar, Resident of Village- Kathitikar, P.O.Narayanpur, P.S.- Barahat, District- Banka.

¶12

Md. Nasimun Nazar, Son of Md. Mustaque Auem, Resident of VillageKarampur, P.O.- Parsa, P.S.- Godda, District- Godda. 8. The Md. Irafil, Assistant Teacher, Madarsa Islamia Kathitikar, P.O. Narayanpur, Via- Barahat P.S.- Barahat, District- Banka.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar Singh-AC to SC16 For the Madrasa Board : Mr. Rashid Alam, Advocate

¶15

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER

¶16

3 04-12-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar State Madarsa Education Board.

¶17

Mr. Shailendra Kumar Tiwary appearing on behalf of

¶18

the petitioner submits that petitioner is head Maulvi Madarsa Islamia Kathitikar, District-Banka.

¶19

He submits that he has been authorized by Managing

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.1057 of 2017 (3) dt.04-12-2017

¶21

2/3

¶22

Committee of Madarsa to file the present writ application.

¶23

Mr. Rashid Alam appearing on behalf of the Madarsa Board submits that the petitioner is one of the members of the Committee who took decision and the decision was approved by the Madarsa Board and as such the present writ application is not maintainable. He submits that petitioner has alternative remedy by way of preferring an appeal and as such the petitioner may be relegated to exhaust alternative remedy.

¶24

Mr. Tiwary on the other hand, submits that the entire action is totally without jurisdiction and as such alternative remedy is not a bar in entertaining the writ petition.

¶25

Without entering into the controversy, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the Bihar State Madarsa Board Education to take decision on one way or the other, if there is a fresh decision taken by the Committee with regard to interest of respondent no.5 to 8.

¶26

In case, the Madarsa Education Board is required to pass any order which may adversely affect the interest of respondent nos. 5 to 8, the Madarsa Education Board is required to give notice to the respondent nos. 5 to 8 and only after hearing them, the Board may pass appropriate order. In case, the Board is of the view that the claim of the petitioner does not merit any

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.1057 of 2017 (3) dt.04-12-2017

¶28

3/3

¶29

consideration, in that situation, no notice is required to be served on the respondent nos. 5 to 8. The Madarsa Education Board is required to take final decision on the decision taken by the Madarsa contained in Annexure-3 at the earliest, preferably within a period of 60 days.

¶30

It is made clear that this court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case and Madarsa Education Board is free to take decision without being influenced by any observation made in this order.

¶31

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J)

¶32

Ravi/U

Md. Ekbal Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Md. Ekbal Ahmad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Lal Babu Sah and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Laxmi Sahu Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raj Kumar Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sandeep Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Munna Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Mahendra Bhuyian Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.