IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 4957 of 2005 Sudarshan Ram Hazam @ Sudarshan Ram, son of late Jokhan Ram, Resident of village – Machakhia, Police Station – Durgawati, District - Kaimur - Petitioner Versus 1 The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2 The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna, Bihar Secondary Education Office, Budha Marg, Patna 3 The District Education Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua 4 The Headmaster, Jagjivan Unchcha Vidyalaya Machakhia, Police Station – Durgawati, District – Kaimur 5 Janardan Prasad Choudhary, posted as peon, Jagjivan Unchcha Vidyalaya, Machakhia, P S – Durgawati, District – Kaimur - Respondents *** For the petitioner : Mr Subhash Chandra Dubey, Advocate For the S t a t e : Mr A C to G P 2 For private respondents M/s Om Prakash Upadhyay, Mithilesh Kumar Upadhyay, Advocates *** 4 13.05.2011 The petitioner had come earlier to this Court with a grievance that he had donated about 36 decimals of his land for construction of the school in question in lieu thereof he was taken as peon at the time of take over of school in 1982, he alleges that his name was in the list of staff but subsequently he has not been recognised by State. Division Bench of this Court, in the earlier proceedings, noted petitioner’s assertion that one post of peon was vacant as a consequence of transfer of another employee. This Court, accordingly, directed the petitioner to make a representation before the Director, Secondary Education to consider whether petitioner could be absorbed on that post or not. The Director, Secondary Education has rejected the claim of the petitioner which has brought the petitioner before this Court again. 2 Having perused the order of the Director, Secondary Education, I find that after due enquiry and inspection that petitioner, after take over of school, had joined the group of untrained Teachers whose services were not to be taken up by the State Government. His name figured in the list of staff but it was found that petitioner was not working in the school. In other words, he was absent at the time of take over and thereafter. It is further observed that there were two sanctioned posts of peon in the school and both had been duly filled up and there was no vacancy where petitioner could be adjusted even though he was donor of the land. These are all concluded questions of fact which cannot be reopened in judicial review by this Court under Article-226 of the Constitution. In view of the facts aforesaid, there is nothing for this Court remaining to do but to dismiss the application. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)