0

Question of issuance of writ of mandamus is not permissible: Patna High Court

The Supreme Court’s decision in Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1977 SC 276, question of issuance of writ of mandamus is not permissible is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S. KUMAR in the case of Reena Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 952 of 2022)

Brief facts of the case are that Petitioner has requested that this writ application be filed for the issuance of an appropriate writ, preferably in the nature of Mandamus, commanding and directing the appropriate posts in permanent service under the Respondent State as the petitioner is an Ex-Instructor of Non-Formal Education on several grounds, including that the State Government has decided to absorb the Non-Formal Educational Supervisors in permanent service and services of several persons/ Non-Formal Ex-instructors  as absorbed in the light of several Judicial pronouncements.  The short question in this petition is whether petitioner is entitled to absorption/regularization or a fresh appointment because he was an ex-instructor of Non-Formal Education. In this connection, the concerned respondent is now required to analyse the petitioner’s grievance in light of judicial rulings as well as the State’s policy decision.

The petitioner has not made any representations to the concerned respondent in order to obtain a writ of mandamus. In light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Mani Subrat Jain V. State of Haryana & Ors., reported in A.I.R. 1977 SC 276, question of issuance of writ of mandamus is not permissible. As a result, the instant petition is dismissed, with the petitioner having eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order to file a detailed representation before the relevant authorities. If such a representation is made, the competent authority will review it and issue an appropriate order, which will be communicated to the petitioner.

Click here to read the judgment

Judgement reviewed by – Pooja Lakshmi

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Open chat