IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12149 of 2001 SMT.SAVITA KUMARI, WIFE OF SRI SAHJENDRA PRASAD SINGH, VILLAGE KOIRIBIGHA, P.O. DHIBRA, P.S. JANIPUR, DISTRICT PATNA PRESENTLY POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, PRIMARY SCHOOL, NAWADA, PHULWARISHARIF, PATNA…………………………………………………………………….….PETITIOENR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH COMMISSIONER - CUM - SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. COMMISSIONER - CUM - SECRETARY, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. DIRECTOR OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. REGIONAL DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATNA 5. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, PATNA 6. DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, PATNA 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PHULWARISHARIF,PATNA………………………..…RESPONDENTS ----------- 4 30.06.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. This writ application has been filed by the petitioner for direction to the respondents for release of her salary of 3rd July, 2000 and of period between 12th October, 2000 to 21st October, 2000. With regard to 3rd July, 2000, learned counsel for the petitioner, in view of Annexure-1, admits that the same date should be adjusted against casual leave available to the petitioner as she had applied for leave on account of illness. So far as period between 12th October 2000 - 2 - and 21st October, 2000 is concerned, he submits that the school was, in fact, open and the petitioner was present in the school but the Block Education Extension Officer (respondent no.7) wrongly reported the matter to the District Superintendent of Education that the school was closed and this period, therefore, should be treated as leave without pay to the petitioner. In support of his contention, he has referred to Annexures 6 and 6/A, namely, a letter of the Ward Members addressed to the Block Education Extension Officer, Phulwarisharif and a letter of the Villagers addressed to the Block Education Extension Officer, Phulwarisharif certifying that the school was open during this period and the petitioner was present in the school. Referring to Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, learned counsel for the State has submitted that the Block Education Extension Officer had made surprise inspection of the school and found that all the teachers were absent and reported the matter to the respondent-District Superintendent of Education, who passed the order as contained annexure-B for withholding the salary of the petitioner and others for treating the said - 3 - period as leave without pay to the teachers. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reply, has submitted that the letters of the Ward Members and villagers were not placed before the District Superintendent of Education and the petitioner and other teachers were not given any opportunity to show, that in fact the school was open during this period and they were present, before the District Superintendent of Education, who passed the order as contained in Annexure-B. Considering the submissions of the respective parties, this Court finds that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to file a representation before the District Superintendent of Education, Patna with supporting materials to show that the inspection report of the Block Education Extension Officer was factually wrong and in fact, the petitioner was present in school during this period. In case the petitioner files a representation with supporting materials before the District Superintendent of education, Patna, he shall consider the same and if he finds that ample evidence has been produced by the petitioner or are available in the school to come to the conclusion that the school was, in - 4 - fact, open during this period and the petitioner was present, he shall pass appropriate order for release of the salary of the petitioner of the relevant period. The District Superintendent of Education shall pass final order in this matter, preferably within a period of two months from the date of filing of the representation. With the above observations and directions, this writ application is disposed of. B.T (J.N. Singh, J.)