IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.14169 of 2005
MD.ALAMGIR ANSARI, SON OF LATE DR. MD. MANIRUDDIN ANSARI, RESIDENT OF
MOHALLA NOONGOLA, P.O. AND P.S. HAJIPUR TOWN, DISTRICT VAISHALI.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PETITIONER
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION,
GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA.
3. THE COLLECTOR, VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI.
4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT
VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR.
5. THE MANAGING COMMITTEE, TOWN MIDDLE SCHOOL, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT
VAISHALI AT HAJIPUR, THROUGH ITS SECRETARY.
6. THE SECRETARY, MANAGING COMMITTEE, TOWN MIDDLE SCHOOL,
HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI.
7. THE HEAD MASTER, TOWN MIDDLE SCHOOL, HAJIPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI
AT HAJIPUR.
-----------
3 11.2.2011 The petitioner is working in the
Town Middle School in the district of
Vaishali. He had filed a writ application
before this Court for payment of certain
portion of his salary. This Court directed
that the petitioner would be entitled for
payment of the salary for the reasons
contained in Annexure-2 (CWJC No. 2662 of
1978). The petitioner had to again come to
this Court as he was not being permitted to
join the school by the Principal on the
ground that he had remained absent for a
short period of time. The petitioner had
filed a representation before the District
2
Superintendent of Education and as such this
Court directed that the District
Superintendent of Education, Hajipur should
dispose of the representation. Apparently
the representation was not disposed of. It
is, therefore, not clear to this Court as to
whether the petitioner actually joined the
school thereafter or not.
The present writ application has
been filed as there was a notice issued on
11.2.2004 in a daily Hindi newspaper asking
all the teachers of the school in question
to appear before the District Superintendent
of Education, Hajipur, along with their
certificates of educational qualification,
appointment letters etc. to test the
validity of their appointments. It has been
submitted that this advertisement was issued
on a complaint lodged by some persons.
It is expected that the petitioner
must have appeared before the Committee. As
far as the claim of the petitioner that he
has not been paid his salary and has not
been allowed to join the duty, this Court
cannot pass any positive order, as if the
petitioner was aggrieved by the fact that
3
despite the orders of the Court, the
District Superintendent of Education had not
disposed of the representation of the
petitioner, he ought to have moved this
Court at the earliest, but certainly not
after 20 years to seek a direction for
payment of salary.
In the result, this writ application
is dismissed on the ground of delay and
latches.
Sanjay ( Sheema Ali Khan, J.)