R.K. Merathia, J. - (1.) HEARD .
(2.) PETITIONER is aggrieved by the order dated 9.8.2009, passed by the District Education Officer cum District Program Officer, Sarb Sikchha Abhiyan, Garhwa (Annexure -1), rejecting the petitioner's claim pursuant to the order passed on 2.2.2009 in WPC No. 6484 of 2007. Petitioner came to this Court in that writ petition claiming himself to be a founder member of School at Pathagara Khurd, Ramuna Block, District -Garhwa established under Sarb Sikchha Abhiyan. His grievance was that the said school was upgraded but it was suddenly closed on the ground that it was situated within 0.5 kilometer of other upgraded school situated at Pathagara Kala. It was also contended by the petitioner that the school situated at Pathagara Khurd was upgraded in the year 2004, whereas the school situated at Pathagara Kala was upgraded in the year 2005 -06 and therefore school situated at Pathagara Kala be closed and not the school of the petitioner situated at Pathagara Khurd. It was not denied in the counter affidavit filed in the said writ petition, that the school situated at Pathagara Khurd was upgraded earlier to the school situated at Pathagara Kala and in that view of the matter the order under which school situated at Pathagara Khurd was to be closed, was quashed and matter was remitted to the District Superintendent of Education, Garhwa for taking a decision in the matter. Thereafter, a contempt case (Civil) No. 556/09 was filed by the petitioner, which was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner, if so advised, may challenge the order already passed. It is submitted that accordingly, this writ petition has been filed challenging the impugned order.
(3.) IT appears from the impugned order that both the schools were established simultaneously; and that Pathagara Kala being a bigger village the school situated at Pathagara Kala was to be upgraded, but by mistake both the schools at Pathagara Kala and Khurd were upgraded. It is further said in the impugned order that there is difference of only 0.5 kilometer between two schools and therefore decision was taken to close the school at Pathagara Khurd on 9.9.2006. Moreover, in the school of Pathagara Kala, the facility of toilet and drinking water were available, which were not available in the school at Pathagara Khurd. It appears that the District Superintendent of Education has taken into consideration the relevant aspects of the matter, and valid reasons have been assigned by him while rejecting the claim of the petitioner. Petitioner also could not show as to what is his locus standi in this matter. I see no reason to interfere with the impugned order. Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed. However, no costs.;