SATAY NARAYAN YADAV v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

CWJC No.13655 of 2008 SMT.BABY KUMARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.17238 of 2008 AJAY KUMAR PANDEY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.11790 of 2008 SUBHADRA DEVI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.12520 of 2008 RAM DULARI Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.11414 of 2008 TRIPTI NARAYAN LAL Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.11480 of 2008 INDRA KANT JHA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.11388 of 2008 RAM SUNDAR YADAV Versus 3 THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.15293 of 2008 ANANT NARAYAN YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.1108 of 2009 RAJEEV RANJAN CHOUDHARY Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.18591 of 2008 SURENDRA PRASAD YADAV Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- CWJC No.13302 of 2008 KRISHNA SWAROOP Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS -----------

25.03.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. The matter relates to appointment of non-teaching staff of Project Schools during the phase 1984-85 and 1988-89. This Court by an order dated 24.3.2009 in CWJC No. 11375 of 2008 has dealt with the matter at length and similar impugned orders have been set aside. The distinguishing features urged in the present case by the counsel for the Respondents are that there was no advertisement and no selection committee whatsoever in so far as the present petitioners are concerned. This Court is required to deal with only two additional factors in so far as the aforesaid submissions are 4 concerned. The petitioners were appointed during the period 1984-85 to 1988-89. Their appointments have already been subject matter of an earlier enquiry when the report was in their favour for a valid appointment as noticed by this Court in CWJC No. 12302 of 2003 and analogous cases. They were sought to be terminated subsequent to this enquiry by another enquiry leading to the aforesaid writ applications. The Division Bench on appeal preferred by the State noticed the diametrically opposite view in the two enquiry reports. The question to the mind of this Court is whether the action of the Respondents in calling upon the petitioners to produce advertisement with regard to an event which took place nearly 18-20 years ago and a conclusion arrived at in negative that the petitioners were unable to produce the advertisement is reasonable. It leaves this Court baffled. A person appointed in service, preserves the papers with to the appointment for a reasonable period of time. After a reasonable period of time, when a person is settled in his job, the papers relating to appointment, (with exception to the appointment letter), the advertisement loses its sheen. The action of the Respondents in calling for the advertisement nearly 18-20 years old on the face of it is unreasonable. It was for the Respondents to go through their archives and record a positive finding that their records do not reflect any proposal for an advertisement much less an 5 advertisement. The findings arrived at in the impugned order is in the negative as if the Respondents do not wish to commit themselves and take responsibility for what they say. The Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1362 of 2005 and analogous cases noticed two diametrically opposite reports on facts. One, that the appointments were legal, and the second that the appointments were not legal. In this background, the Division Bench recorded that the matter required a factual probe. The direction of the Court was clear. The Respondents were required to consider both the reports on facts and then arrive at a conclusion which report was correct, for what reasons, and the reasons why one of the reports was not acceptable. If further enquiry was required, the respondents could also do so. The impugned order contains no discussion of either of the reports. It does not reject the earlier report in favour of the petitioners which the Division Bench had thought prudent not to set aside also, but directed a factual enquiry. The respondents in the garb of the Court order have refused to look into a document which they perhaps found inconvenient to deal with. This is per se evidence of arbitrariness. If the Respondents have chosen consciously, knowingly and willingly to disobey the direction of the Division Bench, they have themselves to blame for this batch of the writ applications to be allowed. The law stands settled that an order passed in teeth 6 of an order of the Court is a nullity. If the Respondents have chosen to ignore the direction of the Division Bench, this Court has little option but to set aside the impugned order dated

27.05.2008 on that ground. This batch of writ applications stands allowed. The petitioners shall stand reinstated without prejudice to the rights of the Respondents as noticed hereinabove. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)