High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Md.Mehtab Alam @ Mahatab Alam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 July, 2011

Patna High Court – Orders
Md.Mehtab Alam @ Mahatab Alam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 12 July, 2011
                  IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                       CWJC No.3757 of 2011
                   Md.Mehtab Alam @ Mahatab Alam, son of late Sharfuddin,
                   resident of village - Bairya, P.S. Azamnagar, District - Katihar
                                                               _____ Petitioner
                                                  Versus
                   1. The State of Bihar
                   2. The District Magistrate, Katihar.
                   3. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Katihar.
                   4. The Block Development Officer, Amdabad, Katihar, District-
                       Katihar.
                   5. The Block Development Officer, Pranpur, Katihar.
                   6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Barsoi, District - Katihar.
                                                              ______ Respondents
                                                      -----------

02. 12.7.2011 The plea of the petitioner that law was not

followed with regard to the order of suspension can be best

looked into when a departmental proceeding is held against

him. So far as the suspension order contained in Annexure-2

is concerned, there is clear reason that the petitioner refused

to obey the direction of a quasi judicial authority on an

adjudication made with regard to selection/non-selection on

the post of a Panchayat teacher.

The Court can take judicial notice of this fact that

hundreds of writs have been filed before this Court alleging

that the Panchayat Secretaries are not obeying the dictates or

directions of the superiors including adjudications made by

the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority. If the

petitioner is one of those persons, who thinks that he is law

by himself, then the law would certainly catch up with him.

It is a matter where proceeding against the

petitioner should be taken to its logical end at the earliest. No
2

interference with the suspension order is required at this

stage.

Writ is dismissed.

rkp                                        ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)