- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties. It appears from the facts of the case that the petitioner alleged that one school teacher, namely, Ashok Bhartirespondent no. 8 was deputed as Junior Engineer to supervise the construction of 124 Primary Schools and other school buildings in Bokaro district. A show cause notice has been issued by the Deputy Director, Education to District Superintendent of Education, Bokaro as to under what authority of law he issued an order to appoint a school teacher as Junior Engineer to supervise the construction of 124 school buildings and other school buildings. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court on the several dates, counter affidavit has been filed and this Court in the order dated 9th October, 2009 observed that in para6 of the counter affidavit dated 4th September, 2009 filed by the Deputy Director, Education, it is stated that respondent no. 8, Ashok Kumar Bharti was deputed by the Deputy Commissioner, Hazaribagh to supervise and inspect the work as Junior Engineer. This Court also noticed that, on the other hand, the Deputy Commissioner in his counter affidavit tried to shift the responsibility upon the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. This Court observed that facts remain that a primary teacher was deputed to discharge the duty of Junior Engineer even though Junior Engineer in the Public Works Department was already posted in the district of Bokaro. Finding the conflict stand of the officers of the State, the matter was sent to the Director General of Police(Vigilance) to make a thorough enquiry vide the same order dated 9th October, 2009. This order was not complied with and no action was taken by the Director General of Police(Vigilance)for almost one year. Upon which notice was issued as to why Director General of Police should not be punished for non compliance of the order of this Court dated 9th October, 2009. This order is dated 5th October, 2010. On 6th October, 2010, the Director General of Police appeared but he had no satisfactory answer and matter was adjourned. However, on 24th November, 2010 this Court made observation that State should put it's house in order and discharge it's obligation and do whatever is required to be done in the context of this case. On 8th December, 2010, it was submitted by the counsel for the IntervenorJharkhand Education Service Association that the members of their association are being implicated, upon which this Court observed that only the persons involved in the crime should be booked and no other person be arrested.
(2.) Be that as it may, ultimately cases have been registered against the guilty persons by the Vigilance Bureau of the State of Jharkhand and, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, some of the accused were arrested. However, when number of accused were not arrested, this Court passed detailed orders dated 26th April,2011, 9th May, 2011 and 7th June, 2011 and now it has been stated by the learned counsel for the State that total 36 accused persons were there, out of which four have been not proceeded further, in view of lack of evidence. The chargesheet has been filed against 32 accused persons. It is submitted that out of those, arrest of one person has been stayed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and one of the accused has surrendered and two accused have not yet been arrested. Be that as it may, purpose of this Public Interest Litigation has been served and Challan has been filed and the State is making all efforts for arrest of the remaining accused persons. Therefore, we do not find any reason to continue with this Public Interest Litigation and hence the same is disposed of.;