IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4694 of 2007
Rudranand Yadav, son of Satyadeo Yadav, resident of village Bhelwa,
P.O. Babhni, Anchal Singheshwar West, District Madhepura
... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Madhepura
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Madhepura
5. The Headmaster cum Drawing and Disbursing Officer, Middle
School, Bhelwa, Anchal Sigheshwar West, District Madhepura
... Respondents
----------------------------------
3. 7.9.2011 No one appears for the petitioner. Counsel for the
State is present.
The respondents as with regard to the following
prayer of the petitioner:
“(i) For issuance of a writ of mandamus
commanding upon the respondents to make payment
of arrears of salary since 28.12.1988 and also the
current salary in view of the office order passed by
respondent no.4 vide Memo No. 63-6 dated
18.7.1993 (Annexure 4) by which after proper
verification of the service of the petitioner salary of
the petitioner was directed to be paid with effect
from 28.12.1988.”
have explained in the counter affidavit that the order according
approval of payment of salary to the petitioner was based on
fraudulent exercise and as such, the petitioner will not be entitled
for payment of salary. In this regard the respondents have
produced the certificate of mark-sheet of the petitioner of his
Matriculation Examination showing his date of birth to be 2 nd
January, 1959 which would make him almost aged about 11 years
when he is said to have been appointed on the post of teacher in
2
Primary School even when he is said to have passed Matriculation
Examination in March, 1975. It is, thus, clear that the petitioner
had made an attempt to obtain an approval by playing fraud and
when an explanation was asked from him on 19.10.2009 vide letter
of the D.S.E., Madhepura dated 19.10.2009 he has not submitted
his reply till date. All these facts in the counter affidavit were
made known to the counsel for the petitioner by serving him a
copy of the counter affidavit on 18.8.2011, whereafter this Court
had also allowed the prayer of the learned counsel for the
petitioner to file his rejoinder to the counter affidavit in the order
dated 19.8.2011.
There is no rejoinder to the counter affidavit nor
counsel for the petitioner has appeared today.
It, thus, becomes clear that the petitioner after being
caught hold by his neck has abandoned his claim and has not
pressed this application.
That being so, this application is dismissed as not
pressed with a liberty to the respondents to take further action in
continuation to the show cause notice issued by the D.S.E.,
Madhepura.
(Mihir Kumar Jha,J.)
Surendra/