IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1655 of 2010 1. BENKATESH KUMAR S/O LATE GIRIJESH SHARMA R/O VILL MAHESH PARASI , P.S.UPHARA,DISTT- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION , HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 3. REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION null MAGADH DIVISION , GAYA 4. DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM CHAIRMAN SARB SHIKSHA ABHIYAN BIHAR EDUCATION PROJECT , AURANGABAD 5. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT EDUCATION AURANGABAD 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER GOH,AURANGABAD 7. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFFICER GOH,AURANGABAD ----------- 2 26.7.2010 Petitioner, who is an Assistant Teacher in a Government School has come to this Court against the order of District Superintendent of Education, Aurangabad passed on the direction of the Collector of the district requiring the petitioner to handover charge of the school to Smt. Leelawati Kumari. Petitioner states that earlier the petitioner had been given charge of the School to execute the work under Sarb Shiksha Abhiyan. The work is in progress and if at this moment petitioner is directed to handover charge, petitioner would be prejudiced unless proper NOC is given in respect of the work already completed. In my view, it is futile for the petitioner to contend that he has a right to continue as In- charge of the 2 School. That decision has to be taken by the administrative body and decision having been taken the petitioner has to obey the said direction and handover charge immediately. However, it shall be the responsibility of the District Superintendent of Education to immediately scrutinize the work already done and expenses incurred and to that extent give a certificate to the petitioner , so that later on there may be no dispute in which petitioner may be uselessly drawn into controversy. This part of the relief sought for is proper. I direct the petitioner to handover charge immediately to Smt. Leelawati Kumari as directed by District Superintendent of Education and would henceforth withdraw himself from all works under the Sarb Shiksha Abhiyan . However, it shall be the responsibility of the District Superintendent of Education to immediately verify to the extent of work done and grant a certificate to that extent to the petitioner for future use of the petitioner as also for knowing exactly at which stage the work is pending. It is expected that District Superintendent of Education would conduct the enquiry after due notice to the petitioner and in presence of the petitioner and give NOC within a period of one month from the date of production of a copy of this order before him by the petitioner. Mr. Banwari Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that during the pendency of the writ petition, 3 petitioner was suspended but the suspension has stood automatically revoked in view of the fact that three months period having been expired, no charges having been submitted. He relied on a judgment of this Court in the case of State of Bihar –v- Gyan Kumar Ram since reported in 2009(4)PLJR 272. In my view, this Court having decided the legal issue, it is open for the petitioner to bring the same to the notice of the disciplinary authority for the needful. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is disposed of. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)