IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.15535 of 2005 JAY NARAYAN SAHU, son of Sri Nirdhan Sahu, resident of village- Alauli, P.S- Alauli, district- Khagaria, presently posted as Incharge Head master, Middle School , sisauni, Anchal- Dandari, District- Begusarai. -----------Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR through the Secretary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, new Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Primary andf Adult Education Department Government of Bihar, new Secretariat, patna. 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur. 4. The District magistrate, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 5. the Deputy Development Commissioner, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 6. The treasury Officer, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 7. the District Education officer, Begusarai, District- Begusarai. 8. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 9. Sri Baldeo Singh, son of not known to the petitioner the then Block Education Extension officewr, Balia -cum- Dandari Block, District- Begusarai. 10. the Headmaster, Middle School Katarmala, Anchal- dandari, District- Begusarai. 11. Sri Nand Kishore singh, son of not Known to the petitioner presently posted as an Assistant Teacher in Middle School, Sisauni, Anchal – Dandari, District- Begusarai. -----------Respondents For the Petitioner : Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam For the State : Mr. Kumar Vikram, AC to SC 10 For the Respondent No. 11: Mr. Pushkar Shahi and Patanjali Rishi. 4. 13.04.2011 The petitioner was the Incharge Headmaster of Government Nationalized Middle School Sisauni ( Dandari) Balia district Begusarai. He filed this application in the year 2005 for quashing directions being issued to him to pay the salary of respondent no. 11 Nand Kishore Singh as an Assistant Teacher who was alleged to have been transferred to his school by transferred letter dated 1.3.2004 issued by the Block Education Extension 2 Officer. Petitioner’s contention is that upon inquiry by the District Education Officer it was found that respondent no 11 had in fact not been transferred to the school in question and had not been present in the school in question his attendance was fraudulently later on entered, this is the finding of the District Education officer of the 2nd of August 2005, curiously on the same day is the direction of the District Education Officer to the petitioner and the treasury to make payment for the said Nand Kishore Singh as a teacher of petitioner’s school the transfer order was also sent for verification and it was found that it did not appear to be issued from the office of the Block Education Extension Officer concerned pursuant to notice issued by this Court. Respondent no. 11 has appeared it is inter alia, stated on his behalf that his entire issue has been raised up by the petitioner because upon the transfer of respondent no. 11 to the school of the petitioner, respondent no. 11 would have to take charge as the acting Headmaster because he was senior to the petitioner and it is to ever this situation all this is being done. Mr. Pushkar Shahi learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 11 further raises an objection as to maintainability of the writ petition as of now be. He submits that by passage of time both the petitioner and the respondent no. 11 have been transferred out of that school to different schools and as such no cost subsist would be pursue in this court . In my view the objection as raised by respondent no.11 is correct a cause must subsist when writ petition is taken up as petitioner is not more in that school much less as an acting 3 Headmaster no cause of action subsist on the petitioner therefore, on this issue the said writ petition must be dismissed.. However in view of the serious controversy raised in the writ petition the matter appears to be serious the District Education Officer as noted above on the same day first by memo 1529 dated 2nd of August 2005 directs inter alia. The petitioner to make payment in respect of respondent no.11 then by memo no. 1530 dated 2nd August 2005 . He directs disciplinary action holding respondent no.11 to be illegally claiming transfer and working surely there was something wrong. There is further verification and the report that no such transfer order had been issued this aspect of the matter needs to be looked into I direct the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education Munger must looked into the matter and make all necessary inquiries within two months of production of copy of this order. Pass appropriate orders about the status of respondent no.11 during the period under considerations more so because the salary for that period is 1.3.2004 to 31.7.2006 has yet to be paid the Regional Deputy Director of Education would make such inquire as he deem fit after notice to respondent no.11 and pass necessary orders. The writ application is disposed of. Namita ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. )