IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12863 of 2007 Omprakash Pathak, S/o Shri Bhola Pathak, Resident of Village + P.O. Sohanariya, P.S. Kateya, District Gopalganj. ---------- Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Collector, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj, Bihar. 3. The District Education Officer, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Cum- District Programme Convener, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj. 5. The Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Gopalganj. 6. The Block Development Officer Block, Panchdeori, District Gopalganj. 7. Sri Vijay Shankar Dubey, S/o Late Bishwanath Dubey, R/o Village Narainpur, P.S. Kuchuykot, Dist. Gopalganj, Block Education Extension Officer, Panchodeori, Gopalganj. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block Panchdeori, District Gopalganj. 9. The Headmaster, Upgraded Middle School, Maghwalia, Panchdeori, District Gopalganj. 10. The President School Education Committee, Majhwalia, Panchdeori, District Gopalganj. 11. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, Baikunthpur, Block Kateya, District Gopalganj. 12. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Baikunthpur, Block Kateya, District Gopalganj. 13. Shri Hare Ram Tiwary Prakhand Teacher, Upgraded Middle School, Majhawalia Panchdeory Block, P.S. Kateya, District Gopalganj. ------- Respondents ----------- 2 23.07.2010 Heard Mr. Manan Kumar Mishra, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and counsel for the State. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That this application is being filed for issuance of a writ/direction restraining the Respondents from removing the petitioner from removing the petitioner from service as Prakhand Sikshak of upgraded Middle School, 2 Manjhawalia, Panchadeori in the district of Gopalganj. The Respondent may also be directed to produce the order of Removal of Petitioner (if any) and then to quash the same. The Respondents have never issued or served any such order to the petitioner. 1/A That the petitioner also prays for issuance of any other writ/order/direction to respondent authorities to restrain the Respondents from allowing Shri Rare Ram Tiwary to work in place of petitioner. 1/B That the petitioner further prays for issuance of a writ/direction to the Respondent authorities to reinstate the petitioner.” With reference to the aforementioned prayer, Mr. Misrha would submit that that once the petitioner was appointed by a valid appointment order as Panchayat Shikshak, he could not have been restrained from working on an oral order of Block Education Extension Officer and that too without any valid reason. In this regard, he would submit that the petitioner, in fact, had worked from 7th December, 2006 in Upgraded Middle School, Majhawalia and on 16th June, 2007, one Sri Vijay Shankar Dubey, 3 the then in-charge, Block Education Extension Officer had in course of his visit and inspection of the said school had struck off the name of the petitioner from the attendance register with a direction to the Headmaster to not to allow the petitioner to work in the school. In this respect, he has also referred to an order passed by the Headmaster on 23.8.2007 recording the notes of inspection of the Block Education Extension Officer dated 16.6.2007. Mr. Mishra submits that neither the Block Education Extension Officer nor the Headmaster is competent to deal with the service condition of the petitioner, a Panchaayt Shikshak and such power is in fact only vested with the Deputy Development Commissioner under 2006 Rules. Counsel for the State as usual would draw a blank face because he has no instruction and he has not filed a counter affidavit. The non-filing of the counter affidavit in fact these days has become a practice. In such a situation, when the petitioner has kept almost waiting for almost 4 three years for ventilation of his grievance, keeping this writ application pending further only awaiting for filing of a counter affidavit would be itself committing injustice in the cause of the petitioner. That being so, this Court would direct the petitioner to file a compact representation enclosing all the relevant documents before the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gopalganj, who will be under obligation to dispose of the same by passing a final order within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that it will be also open for the Deputy Development Commissioner, Gopalganj to go into the question of correctness of the educational qualification and the alleged forgery in his certificate. It is also made clear that if the certificate of the petitioner is found to be correct and not forged, he will be entitled for payment of salary for a period he was restrained from working in the school against the post on which he was appointed and had continued from the December, 2006 to 5 16th June, 2007. In such an event, it would be also open for the Deputy Development Commissioner to recover the amount of salary to be paid to the petitioner from Vijay Shankar Dubey, the then In-charge, Block Education Extension Officer and also Sri Nivas Misra, the then Headmaster who must be held to be equally responsible for depriving the petitioner from working and ultimately drawing salary without work. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is disposed of. Rsh (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)