IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.14593 of 2008 BRAJ KISHORE MAHTO, son of Late Jagdish Mahto, resident of village Arakpur, P.O. Sheopur Sakara, P.s. Asawan, District Siwan, at present posted and workingas an Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Naraineeya (Narainia) Anchal – Hathua – I, District – Gopalganj. …. Petitioner Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner – cum- Chairman of Education Establishment Committee, Gopalganj 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj 7. The Range Education Officer, Hathua, District Gopalganj 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Hathua –I, District Gopalganj ……. Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vasant Vikas, A.C. to S.C. 15 ----- 4 23.02.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Earlier, time was granted to the State for filing counter affidavit. But no counter affidavit has been filed. The petitioner, who is working as Assistant Teacher in Government Primary School Naraineeya 2 (Narainia), anchal – Hathua – I, District – Gopalganj, seeks direction for considering him as a Matric Trained teacher from the date of passing of Shiksha Vishard, which according to the petitioner is equivalent to B.Ed. examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that a representation was given to the respondent no. 6, the District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj, in this regard on 20.7.2005 and 10.12.2005. However, none of them have been considered by the concerned District Superintendent of Education till date. In above view of the matter, this writ application is being disposed of with a direction to the respondent no. 6 that if the petitioner files a fresh representation in this regard within six weeks, the same should be considered and decided on its own merit in accordance with law within three months thereafter by the respondent no. 6. A copy of the decision taken by the authority should be communicated to the petitioner. It is made clear that this Court has not formed any opinion with regard to the merit of the case of the petitioner. 3 Accordingly, this writ application is disposed of in the terms indicated above. Spd/- ( Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.)