Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12524 of 2008 ====================================================== 1. Arjun Kumar Pandey , son of Late Bishwanath Pandey, resident of Village- Nautan Khurd, P.O. Harpur Tola, P.S. Majhauliya, District West Champaran 2. Surendra Pathak, Son of Sri Ram Chandra Pathak, resident of Vilalge Jabdaul, P.O. Brindawan Ashram, P.S. Chanpatiya, District West Champaran 3. Tribhuwan Roy Sharma, son of Sri Raghunath Roy, resident of Vilalge Jabdaul, P.O. Brindawan Ashram, P.S. Chanpatiya, District West Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director- cum- Additional Secretary, Primary Education, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur 4. The District Superintendent of Education, West Champaran
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13317 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Md. Motiullah S/O Late Md. Yaqoob Vill.- Jamua, P.O.- Jamua, Via- Dhaka, P.S.- Dhaka, Distt.- East Champaran 2. Pramod Kumar Jha S/O Sri Lakhman Jha Vill.- Pathrighat, P.S.- Bettiah, P.S.- Bairiya, Distt.- West Champaran 3. Raj Kishore Kuer S/O Sri Asharfi Kuer Vill.- Bankatwa, P.S.- Chanpatia, Distt.- West Champaran 4. Om Prakash Mishra S/O Sri Gopal Jee Mishra Vill.- Giddha, P.S.- Chanpatia, Distt.-West Champaran 5. Md. Shamshad S/O Late Md. Yunus Vill.- Barahbatra, P.O.- Ara, Distt.- Ara 6. Md. Maqsood Alam S/O Late Sakur Alam Vill.- Barahbatra, P.O.- Ara, Distt.- Ara 7. Mahesh Tiwari S/O Late Ram Deo Tiwary Vill.- Giddha, P.O.-Chaubey Tola, P.S.- Chanpatia, Distt.- West Champaran 8. Md. Habibullah S/O Samsul Vill.- Mohamadpur, P.O.- Bhandar, P.S.- Dhaka, East Champaran 9. Amirul Haq S/O - Abdul Hafij Vill.- Chandmohan, P.S.- Kundawa Chainpur, Distt.- East Champaran 10. Sudama Mishra S/O Sri Kant Mishra Vill.- Gidha, P.O.- Chaubey Tola, P.S.- Chanpatia, Distt.- West Champaran 11. Shambhu Nath Kuer S/O Late Asharfi Kuer Vill.- Bankatwa, P.O.- Yadav Chapar, P.S.- Chanpatia, Distt.- West Champaran Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Developments, Patna, Bihar .... .... Petitioner/s Patna High Court CWJC No.12524 of 2008 (12) dt.04-01-2013 2/ 6 2. The Director, Primary Education, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.12524 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bimlesh Kumar Pandey Mr. Sunil Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. GA 5 (In CWJC No.13317 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pathak Dhananjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, SC 7 Mr Himanshu Kumar Akela, AC to GA 3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 12 04-01-2013 Petitioners are flogging a dead horse without there being any substantive ground for making a grievance against the conduct or action of the respondents in not appointing them as Assistant Teachers in basic schools of the State. The present case relates to Tirhut Division. Many years ago some appointments came to be made in the basic schools across the State which became contentious because no procedure as such was followed with regard to such appointments. Majority of such persons did not have the requisite qualification for being appointed on the said post. The State Government thereafter decided to remove such persons which led to a series of litigations, which even ended up at the door of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the order contained in Patna High Court CWJC No.12524 of 2008 (12) dt.04-01-2013 3/ 6 Annexure- 5 did not interfere with the decision of the respondent State to remove such persons but did give an opening to them in the sense that a fresh procedure for recruitment was required to be followed by issuance of notice laying down the requisite qualification etc. and the petitioners or persons like the petitioners were also given an opportunity to participate. Contention of the counsel for the petitioners is that thrice over advertisement came to be made and at every time the Apex Court had to interfere because of the contents and condition of the advertisements. Final advertisement was issued in terms of Annexure- 8 on 7th of August, 1988. Even interview letters admittedly were issued to the petitioners and exercise was completed but no appointments came to be made. Therefore, they were left with no option but to file the present writ applications. It is the stand of the counsel for the petitioners that they have got a right for consideration which accrued in terms of the direction of the Hon’ble Apex Court. The State intentionally thwarted the right of the petitioners by not acting upon the said selection process or making any appointment. Some persons had been removed but some were allowed to continue on the post in one manner or the other. It is also a case of discrimination which has been created by the State Government. Patna High Court CWJC No.12524 of 2008 (12) dt.04-01-2013 4/ 6 The appointment and removal of these petitioners along with large number of other similarly situated persons is not required to be gone into. Their removal has never been found to be bad or illegal by any of the Courts, either at the level of the High Court or the Supreme Court. The only opening which the petitioners got is for consideration along with rest of the claimants who were supposed to participate in terms of the advertisement so made. It is evident from reading of the advertisement that the minimum qualification required for such appointment was matric- trained. As per the State a list of 165 candidates was forwarded to the Director, Primary Education from Tirhut Division authority for consideration and appointment in the year 1988 itself and a decision was taken not to make appointment of persons, who did not have the requisite qualification. Since some persons did hold the requisite qualification of matric- trained, their appointments were made and they have been working as such. So far as case of these petitioners is concerned, they are being resisted by the State on the ground that persons, who did not have the basic eligibility, cannot make a grievance against their non- appointment because the selection process has been completed years ago and as an after thought, present writ applications have been filed after Patna High Court CWJC No.12524 of 2008 (12) dt.04-01-2013 5/ 6 more than a decade seeking direction for such appointment when no rights exist in their favour. The grievance of the petitioners that their case was intentionally not taken up or was not considered seems to be a misnomer in view of the stand of the State in the counter affidavit, which has been filed with supporting materials. The exercise seems to have been completed many many years ago. Since these petitioners did not have the requisite qualification, though there may be vacancy available, they cannot be considered for appointment. The Court will also have serious reservation in passing any order for appointment of persons, who were removed from the post as far back as in the year 1985. Having lost their touch with their qualification and their ability now to teach students even in the basic school after so many years of inaction on their part as teachers, it would neither be in the interest of students or administration to even remotely consider their case with lack eligibility. The writ applications have no merit. They are being dismissed. So far as claim of petitioner no.3 in CWJC No.12524 for salary is concerned, if he has worked in an ad hoc capacity in a Patna High Court CWJC No.12524 of 2008 (12) dt.04-01-2013 6/ 6 basic school, that is a separate issue for which the said petitioner can approach the appropriate authority, who will decide his claim if they have taken work from the petitioner, on due verification. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk