Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 306 (PAT)

Ashok Pathak v. State Of Bihar

2006-04-10

NARAYAN ROY

body2006
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. The order, as contained in annexure 25, issued vide memo no. 162 dated 20.9.1999 is under challenge, whereby and whereunder the Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, has rejected the claim of the petitioner for the post of Sanskrit Teacher in the school in question. 3. It appears that the petitioner earlier had approached this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 4953 of 1997 with a stale claim for payment of salary and also for a direction to approve his appointment on the post of Sanskrit Teacher. The writ application was disposed of with a direction to the petitioner to represent his case before the competent authority. 4. Pursuant to the direction of this Court, the petitioner filed his representation and after hearing the parties, the Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, disposed of the same by the order impugned. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the Special Director has committed certain errors in not recording the claim of the petitioner in correct perspective of the case. 6. It appears that the order impugned, as contained in annexure 25, is reasoned one, as the same has been passed on consideration of the materials produced by the parties. It also appears that the petitioner and the school authorities were given full opportunity to place their respective claims and on scrutiny of the materials brought on record before the Special Director, he recorded the finding rejecting the claim of the petitioner to the post of Sanskrit Teacher. It further appears that the claim of the petitioner to the post of Sanskrit Teacher was not found to be genuine. The order impugned is speaking order and at the face of it, I do not find any error nor I find the order contrary to the documents produced by the parties. 7. It also appears from the order impugned that the petitioner had tried to obtain the approval of his appointment and to get salary etc. on the pretext not tenable in law. 8. Regard being had to the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the findings recorded by the Special Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna I do not find sufficient reasons to interfere with the order impugned. 9. This application is, accordingly, dismissed.