IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.127 of 2011 IN (CWJC 5087/2002) ==================================================== SMT.CHANCHAL DEVI, Wife of Sri Tulsi Narayan Prasad, At present R/o E- 408,Asu Enclave, Ara Gardens, Bailey Road, R/o LF 84 Sector-6 Bahadurpur Housing Colony, Patna -20 ,P.O.-Kankarbag,P.S.-Agamkuan Patna presently Assistant Teacher, Ghanshyam Girl High School, Khagaul, Patna. – Appellant-------------------Petitioner . Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2.The Secretary, Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3.The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4.Regional Deputy Director Education, Patna Range, Patna. 5.The District Education Officer, Patna. 6.Smt. Radhika Sinha, ex-headmistress, Ghanshyam Girls’ High School, Khagaul, Patna.----------------------------------Respondent/s(s)/Respondents . ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s: Mr. TULSI NARAYAN PRASAD For the Respondent/s: Mr. S.K.MANDAL SC 24 MR.BIPIN KR..ADV.A/C TO SC 24. ==================================================== ------------- 4. 30.06.2011 Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. The Writ Court has quoted, in extenso, the order of District Education Officer, Patna dated 18.01.2002, which was under challenge in the writ proceeding .Thereafter the dispute relating to facts as to whether appellant was willing and available to work from 03.10.1996 till 27.04.1997 have been noticed with meticulous care and the Court has found difficulty in entering into such disputed questions of facts. 2 The District Education Officer in the impugned order has appreciated all the relevant facts for coming to the conclusion that petitioner never presented herself to work in the school for the period of which she is claiming her salary i.e. 03.10.1996 to 27.04.1997. He has also come to a reasonable conclusion that the writ petitioner was only interested in writing letters and creating materials that she was not allowed to join but she never presented herself to join the work. In the facts and circumstances of the case and considering the nature of dispute which relates only to facts, it is not possible to come to a conclusion different from that of the Writ Court. We find no merit in this appeal. It is, accordingly, dismissed. Nitesh ( Shiva Kirti Singh, J.) (V. Nath, J.)