Bagdaha, P.S. Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya. vs Bailey Road, Patna.

Patna High Court CWJC No.7638 of 1996 dt.22-02-2013 2 P.s. Mejar Ganj,District- Sitamarhi. 23.Gynanand Thakur son of Shri Lakshmi Kant Thakur r/o village & P.O. Sasaoula, P.S. Mejarganj, District- Sitamarhi. 24. Devendra Mandal son of Shri Satya Narayan Mandal, resident of village Bharatpatti, P.O. & P.S. Kaluahi, District- Madhubani. 25. Jainarayan Mandal son of Shri Babupur Lal Mandal r/o village- Bharatpatti, P.O. and P.S. Kaluahi, District- Madhubani. 26. Ugranath Jha son of Shri Jaikant Jha, resident of village and P.O. Balia, P.S. Pandaul, district- Madhubani 27.Sunil Kumar Jha s/o Shri Shivnarayan Jha r/o village & P.O. Andhra Tharhi, p.s. Andhra, District- Madhubani. 28.Abdul Zabbar son of Md. Abed r/o village and P.O. Bhagbatipur, P.s. Pandaul, district- Madhubani. 29. Jainarayan Jha son of Shri Bedanand Jha,Goshala, Mohalla- Gate No. 13C, P.O. and P.S. & District- Madhubani. 30.Jai Mohan Jha son of Shri Pitambar Jha, resident of village and P.O. Bitsair, P.S. & District- Madhubani. 31. Ravindra Singh son of Shri Jibachh Singh, resident of village & P.O. Kakana, P.S. Pandaul, District- Madhubani. 32.Rajeshwar Raut son of Shri Ram Prasad Raut, resident of village & P.O. Ranti, P.S. 7 District- Madhubani. 33.Ashok Kr. Jha son of late Dharnidhar Jha, resident of village & P.O. and District-Madhubani 34. Suraj Ram, son of Sri Ishwari Ram, resident of village and P.O. Madhubani, P.S. & District-Madhubani 35. Srideo Singh, son of Shri Bhuplal Singh, resident of village Meran, P.O. Rasidpur, P.O. Rasidpur, PS-Rajnagar, District-Madhubani 36. Ram Sajeevan Singh son of late Sahadeo Singh, resident of village & P.O. Morar, P.S.-Khajouli, District-Madhubani 37. Sayeed Alam, son of Md. Suffi, R/o & P.O.-Raiyam, PS-Raiyam, Factor, District-Darbhanga. 38. Sagrul Haan Ansari, son of Md. Sabirul Hasan, Ansari, resident of village- Bhalani, PO-Haripur, PS-Kalushi, District-Madhubani. 39. Binod Paswan son of Shri Mushahar Paswan r/o Raya Saheb Pokhar Navtoliya , P.O. Laheriasarai, P.S.Sahadurpur, district- Darbhanga. 40. Biso Yadav son of Shri Rameshwar Yadav, resident of village and P.O. lalbag, p.S. Darbhanga. 41. Baleshwar Prasad Yadav son of Shri Siya Ram Prasad Yadav r/o village Ranginia, P.O. and P.S. Simri Bakhtiyarpur, District- Saharsa. 42. Ramnarayan Singh son of Shri Sita Ram Singh, resident of village- Sakatpur, P.O. Pokharbhibda, P.S. Sakatpur, district- Madhubani. 43. Ramchandra paswan son of Anup Paswan, resident of village and P.O. Balbhadrarpur, p./S. Navtoliya, district- Darbhanga. 44.Rajiv Ranjan Singh son of Sri Rajendra Praqsad Singh, resident of Magadh Block Work Murarpur,A.N. Road, Gaya, district- Gaya. 45. Ramji Sijgh son of Shri Brijlal Ssingh, resident of village Chhatihar, P.O. Korai, P.s. Konch, District- Gaya. 46. MadanSharma son of Shri Navrangi Singh, resident of village Dakhi Gaon, P.O.Wazirganj, P.S. Wazirganj, district- Gaya. 47. Satendra Narayan Singh son of Shri Janki Singh, resident of village Khushkohra, P.O. Bihta, P.S. Khijarsarai, District- Gaya. 48. Kauleshwar Yadav son of Shri Rohan Yadav, resident of village- Kharati, P.O. Patna High Court CWJC No.7638 of 1996 dt.22-02-2013 3 Bagdaha, P.S. Bodh Gaya, District- Gaya. 49.Chandrabhushan Kashyap son of Shri hari Nandan Sharma, resident of village and P.O. Ner, P.S. Makhdumpur, District- Jehanabad. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus

1.The State Of Bihar 2.The Director, Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 3.The Additional Secretary, Department of Science and Technology, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna. 4.The District Magistrate, Darbhanga. 5.The District magistrate, Gaya. 6.The Principal, Jagannath Mishra Institute of Technology, Darbhanga At & P.O. MABBI, P.S. Darbhanga, District- Darbhanga. 7. The Principal, Magadh Engineering College, Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11826 of 1997 =========================================================== 1.Md.Khursheed Alam s/o Md. IIlyas r/o village Pakhi, P.S. Adapur, District- East Champaran. 2.Ram Kishore Singh son of Shri Jamuna Singh, r/o village Bara Bariarpur, P.s. Chhatauni, District- East Champaran 3.Ram Bihari Tiwari son of Shri Jay Narain Tiwari, r/o village Bangary, Via- Piprakothi, District- East Champaran. 4. Md. Tauhid Ansari s/o Sri Samsul Haque r/o village Mahuawa, P.S. Chiraiya, District- East Champaran 5. Md. Attaur Rahman son of Jamil Akahtar r/o village Mahuawa, P.S. Chiraiya, District- East Champaran. 6.Subhash Prasad Singh son of Shri Raghubir Pd. Singh r/o village- Amba, via Sahkhurd, District-Bhagalpur. 7. Kumar Ranjan s/o Shri Ram Bihari Sharma r/o M.S. College,Road Motihari, P.S. Motihari, District- East Champaran. 8.Ashok Thakur s/o Shri Lakhan Thakur r/o village-Tilha, Dharamshala, District- Gaya. 9. Jainandan Sharma son of Shri Hira Pd. Singh At & P.O.- Tera, District- Jedhanabad. 10. Ravinder Kumar son of Sri Yamuna Singh r/o village Siswar, P.O. Musapur P.S. Khijarsarai, District- Gaya. 11.Raj kumar Singh s/o Sri Ram Balak Singh, r/o villageBerawan, P.O. Salempur, P.s. Karaiprasurain, District- Nalanda. 12.Ramchandra Singh son of Ram Bhaju Singh r/o village Mansa Bigha, P.O. Khijarsarai,District- Gaya. 13. Narendra Kumar Sharma s/o Shri Dudheshwar Singh .... .... Petitioner/s Versus .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners Patna High Court CWJC No.7638 of 1996 dt.22-02-2013 4 in both cases : M/s. Sunil Kumar, Sardanand Mishra and Ghanshaym Jha. For the State in both cases : Mr. J.S Arora. =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-02-2013 The petitioners in these writ petitions were employees in one or the other Engineering Colleges, which came to be taken over by the State Government pursuant to a legislative enactment. It appears that thereafter the State Government set up a Committee to scrutinize the benefit needs and appointment of various cadre of employees. Those who were then in excess of the staffing pattern even though qualified they were to be removed. The petitioners accordingly came to be dismissed on the recommendation of the Committee in this regard. The petitioners moved this court against their dismissal challenging the notification dated 31.1.1991 in that regard. After hearing the parties, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed their writ petitions. One of the judgments, in which the petitioners are involved, is reported in 1993(2) PLJR

272. Being aggrieved by this dismissal, the petitioners preferred Special leave to Appeal wherein the Apex Court dismissed the same in limine. It appears that thereafter several different batches of writ petitions were filed and different consequences ensued. In some it was held that as their dismissal without notice was in violation of principle of natural justice, the matter has to be reconsidered. In some the State agreed to re-constitute the Committee for reconsidering the issue of surplus. The fact remains that each of the Committees had considered the case of the petitioners and all of them consistently agreed with the recommendation of the first Committee, which led to petitioners’ dismissal. It is virtually the recommendation of 4th Committee that is now being challenged. Patna High Court CWJC No.7638 of 1996 dt.22-02-2013 5 The 4th Committee has agreed to the recommendation of the first Committee and has refused to take a different view of the matter than the first Committee and upon recommendation the petitioners were dismissed. The petitioners now challenged the recommendation of the 4th Committee, which is no difference from the recommendation of the first Committee. In my view, the writ petitions would be barred by the principles- both of res judicata and constructive res judicata. The petitioners having challenged their dismissal unsuccessfully, cannot now find a new ground to challenge the same. The petitioners having suffered and inter party judgment cannot overcome the same by filing the writ petition. The earlier judgment was of a Division Bench, which declines to interfere with the notification dated 31.3.1991, which notification is once again challenged by the same petitioners. That cannot be permitted. However, while dismissing the writ petitions , I would observe as apparent from the judgment of this Court in the case of Sunil Kumar –v- State of Bihar & ors. since reported in 2011(1) PLJR 696 that the government had taken a policy decision to absorb the dismissed surplus employees. The petitioners would have liberty to represent the Government and the State would be obliged to take a decision in conformity with the said judgment, if it is so permissible. It is expected that the State must not see to prolong harassment of the petitioners as they are already on road for last 20 years and appropriate decision to be duly communicated to them, must be taken within six months from the date of production of a copy of this order before the authority. The writ petitions are disposed of. Patna High Court, 22nd February,2013, N.A.F.R./singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J)