IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5855 of 2008 Sajda Khatoon, wife of Md. Mofid Alam, Resident of Village & P.O. Bhakurahar, Police Station Bargania, District Sitamarhi..........................Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its Secretary, Human Resources Department, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Bihar Education Project, Council, BELTRON BHAWAN, Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Collector, Sitamarhi. 4. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi. 5. The District Programme Co-ordinator, Bihar Education Project, Sitamarhi. 6. The Block Education Officer, Bargania, Sitamarhi. 7. The Area Officer of Education, Riga Bargania, Sitamarhi. 8. The Executive Engineer, Rural Development Department, Division, Sitamarhi. 9. The Junior Engineer, District Education Project, Sitamarhi. 10.Shivjee Prasad son of Sri Ram Bilas Sah, President of Sikcha Samittee, Govt. Primary School (Hindi) Bhakurahar, Resident of Village Bhakurahar, Ward No.15, Nagar Panchayat, Bairgania, P.O. Bhakurahar, P.S. Bairgania, District Sitamarhi. 11. Rokhsana Khatoon wife of Mojibur Rahman Secretary, Sikcha Samittee, Govt. Primary School (Hindi) Bhakurahar, Resident of Village Bhakurahar, Ward No.15, Nagar Panchayat, Bairgania, P.O. Bhakurahar, P.S. Bairgania, District Sitamarhi…………Respondents ----------- 2 28.07.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the State. Petitioner has filed this writ application against notice dated 06.03.2008 given by the District Superintendent of 2 Education-cum-District Programme Co- ordinator jointly to the Headmistress, President and Secretary of the School, as contained in Annexure-1. The notice shows that they were alleged of having violated some earlier orders and it has been stated that they were misappropriating the Government fund which they were directed to refund within 72 hours and to remove the illegal construction. This letter of the District Superintendent of Education which has been issued on 06.03.2008 does not show in any way as to what right of the petitioner has been violated so as to maintain a writ application in this Court. If the petitioner had any grievance, she should have approached the Authority claiming that she was not involved in the matter in any way. But surely the writ application is not maintainable in this Court in the matter. The same is, therefore dismissed. BT (J. N. Singh, J.)