- (1.) The present writ petition has been preferred only for the reason that the petitioner being Para Teacher was also Secretary of Village Education Committee and the petitioner has been removed from the Secretaryship of the Committee, though he is still working and continuing as a Para Teacher and therefore, the said order at Annexure4 to the memo of the petition, passed by the District Superintendent of EducationcumDistrict Programme Officer, Hazaribagh, is under challenge.
(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner must be appointed as a Secretary and now, the petitioner has been removed and somebody else has been appointed as Secretary of Village Education Committee. When this Court asked a question under which law, the petitioner must be appointed as Secretary of Village Education Committee, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to point out any legal provision worth the name, nor he could pointed out that there is a statutory duties, vested in the respondents that the petitioner ought to have been appointed as a Secretary of Village Education Committee.
(3.) In view of this inability of the learned counsel for the petitioner to establish the right of the petitioner, under any law and looking to the fact that there is no public duties, vested in the respondents to appoint the petitioner as a Secretary of Village Education Committee, I am not inclined to exercise the extra ordinary powers, vested in this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. No writ of mandamus can be issued, without there being violation of the public duties. Petitioner is unable to establish any public duties, vested in the respondents.;