IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.2587 of 2009
Md.Margub Alam, son of Md. Mansoor Alam,
Resident of village Darha P.S. Dogarwa P.O.
Mohamadia, District Purnea.......Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through it's Secretary,
Primary, Adult Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate cum Chairman,
Sarvsiksha Abhiyan, Purnea
3. The District Superintendent of Education-
cum-District Project Officer, Sarvsiksha
Abhiyan District Purnea.
4. The Block Education Extension Officer,
Sarvshiksha Abhiyan Block Dagarwa, Purnea
5. The Panchayat Sewak-cum-Secretary, Gram
Panchayat Raj- Ichaloo under Block Dagarwa
District Purnea
6. The Mukhia Gram Panchayat Raj Ichaloo
under Block Dugarwa, District
Purnea.........................Respondents
--------
3. 17.08.2010 Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned counsel for the State.
Learned counsel for the petitioner as
well as learned counsel for the State informs
this Court that now the Appellate Authorities
constituted by the State Government under Rule
18 of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak
(Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamvali, 2006 (as
amended by Amendment Act, 2008) are functional
and are now efficacious alternative forums
available to the petitioner and others for
consideration of their grievances.
In view of the submissions of the
learned counsels and in view of the
-2-
availability of the efficacious alternative
forum for consideration of matters relating to
employment of Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Shikshak,
the writ application is disposed of with
liberty to the petitioner to file an
appropriate application before the concerned
Appellate Authority, if not already filed, for
redressal of his grievance. In case such an
application is filed by the petitioner, the
Appellate Authority shall consider the same and
all documents enclosed including orders of this
Court in identical matters, if produced
therewith and make all endeavours to dispose of
the same on its own merits after hearing the
parties concerned, by a speaking order
preferably within the time prescribed under the
Rules for the purpose without going into the
question of limitation.
It is made clear that this Court has not
expressed any opinion with regard to the merits
of the claim of the petitioner.
B.T (J. N. Singh, J.)