CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No.12356 OF 1995 ---- In the matter of an application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India ---- Md. Usman son of Late Moulvi Md. Sultan, resident of Mohalla Maharajganj, P.O. & P.S. Laheriasarai, District Darbhanga, at present Clerk in the Office of District Superintendent of Education, Madhubani, District Madhubani ------ Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources, New Secretariat, Patna. 2. The Special Secretary, Education Department (Primary), Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director (Primary Education) Bihar, Secretariat, Patna ------- Respondents ----- For the Petitioner : DR.M.P.Shukla For the Respondent : Mr.Rana Ishwar Chandra P R E S E N T THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA Shailesh Kr. Sinha, J. Heard the parties. 2. After some arguments, Dr. M.P. Shukla, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that his main contention is that the petitioner was entitled to be absorbed in the Bihar Subordinate Education Service on the post of Clerk like the case of Hari Narain Prasad, who was appointed as Clerk in the Teachers’ Training College, Noorsarai, Nalanda . 3. The petitioner was appointed as Attendance Officer under the Darbhanga Municipality by the order of the then Executive Officer as 2 contained in Memo no.362 dated 9th of April, 1969 with the duty to check at least four schools in a day and was to work under the Sub-Divisional Education Officer-Cum-Municipal Education Officer. As such, the petitioner claims that like Hari Narain Prasad he was also entitled to be absorbed in the Bihar Subordinate Education Service. As a matter of fact, said Hari Narain Prasad was junior to the petitioner in service and also obtained the decree of Bachelor of Education on a later date. 4. A counter affidavit and a supplementary counter have been filed on behalf of the State. The learned counsel for the State submits that the case of the State is covered under those two affidavits. 5. Notwithstanding the above, Dr. Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he proposes to file a proper representation containing all the relevant details to the Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna (respondent no.1). He is permitted to do so. In case such representation is filed within a period of six weeks, the respondent no.1 shall consider the representation of the petitioner in the light of the documents, if any, annexed to such representation and dispose of the same by a reasoned order, preferably within four months from the date of receipt of the representation along with the certified copy of the present order. However, before passing the order, the petitioner may also be afforded with an opportunity of oral hearing on the date fixed in advance. 3 6. The writ application is disposed of with the above observations/directions. (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.) Patna High Court, The 22nd December, 2008. P.N.M. N.A.F.R.