IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.10824 of 2010 1. Smt. Leena Kumari D/O Late Harish Chandra Shrivastava Resident At Civil Line Buxar, P.S.- Buxar Town, Distt.- Buxar Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Patna Division, Patna 3. Mr. Medo Das, The Regional Deputy Director Of Education Patna Division, Patna 4. The Sub-Divisional Education Officer Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda 5. Mr. Harish Chandra Chaudhary, The Then Sub-Divisional Education Officer Hilsa, Distt.- Nalanda ----------- 3. 14.11.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The Court does not consider it necessary to take note of the facts of the case except to the extent necessary for the purposes of the present order. The petitioner is stated to have been appointed on the post of a Clerk in the Primary Teachers Training College at Bihiya. Her salary was not paid to her alleging that her appointment letter was forged and fabricated. She came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10961 of 1992 disposed on 4.3.1993. No one appeared for her. Noticing the averments in the counter affidavit that her appointment letter was forged and fabricated and an F.I.R. had been lodged, declining exercise of discretionary jurisdiction in a writ petition matters were left for the authorities to decide appropriately. The attempt of the petitioner to 2 have the writ application restored for disposal on merits was declined when the restoration application was withdrawn. The issue attained finality. The Criminal case is stated to have been quashed by this Court in exercise of powers under Section 482 of the Cr. P.C. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that she then filed Title Suit No. 54 of 1995 which was decreed in her favour. The Title Appeal preferred by the respondents came to be rejected not on merits but on grounds of limitation. The second appeal and Special Leave Petition met the same fate. It is acknowledged that the petitioner has been reinstated and has been paid her salary. The claim in the writ petition is for damages on account of harassment. Learned counsel submits that the quashing of the criminal prosecution and the findings in the Title suit that her appointment letter was valid are more than enough evidence of the harassment caused to the petitioner and therefore she is entitled to adequate compensation under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in 3 A.I.R. 1993 SC 1960 (Smt. Nilabati Behera alias Lalita Behera Vs. State of Orissa). In so far as the former claim is concerned, if the petitioner has remedies under the Cr. P.C. there is no occasion for the writ Court to interfere. In so far as the latter claim is concerned, the petitioner has adequate remedies under the Civil Laws of the land to file a suit for damages, if aggrieved, and prove the allegations. The law stands well settled that if adequate civil remedies under the Civil laws of the land are available the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 cannot be exercised by usurping power of the civil Court. In (2010) 8 SCC 329 (Shalini Shyam Shetty v. Rajendra Shankar Patil) it has been held at Paragraph-59 as follows:- “59. It has repeatedly been held by this Court that a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution is not the appropriate forum for adjudication of property disputes or disputes relating to title. In Mohd. Hanif v. State of Assam a three-Judge Bench of this Court, explaining the general principles governing writ jurisdiction under Article 226, held that this jurisdiction is extraordinary in nature and is not meant for declaring the private rights of the parties. In coming to the aforesaid conclusion in Hanif this Court referred to the Constitution Bench decision in T.C. Basappa v. T. Nagappa” 4 The judgment in the case of Smt. Nilabati Behera (supra) has no application to the facts of this case as it related to custodial death which is a violation of the fundamental right to life under Article 21 of the Constitution. The relief sought for by the petitioner is a civil claim for damages on allegations of having been wronged and which does not constitute a fundamental right but a civil right. The writ application stands disposed with the aforesaid observations. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)