Madan Singh v. NONE

Patna High Court LPA No.1228 of 2011 (6) dt.14-08-2013 For the Appellants: Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. Advocate and Mr. Raghwendra Sharan Pandey, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Satish Narain Singh, AC to GA 2. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6 14-08-2013 Re. Interlocutory Application No. 5635 of 2013. This application under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure has been filed by the appellants for permission to bring on record two documents viz. the minutes dated 4th May 1989 of the District Education Establishment Committee, Vaishali (Annexure 1 to the Appeal Memo) and the gradation list (Annexure 20 of the Letters Patent Appeal). It is the case of the appellants that the said two documents are part of the Government records. The appellants, in spite of best efforts, could not procure those documents pending the Writ Petition. The said documents have a bearing on the merit of the Appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Satish Narain Singh appears for the State Government. In absence of any contest, the application is allowed. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 1228 of 2011 & Interlocutory Application No. 6017 of 2011. Feeling aggrieved by the common judgment and order dated 23rd September 2010 passed by the learned single Judge insofar as CWJC No. 1660 of 2001 is dismissed, the writ petitioners have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. Patna High Court LPA No.1228 of 2011 (6) dt.14-08-2013 The matter at issue is the reversion of the appellants from the post of the Headmaster of the concerned schools to the post of Assistant Teacher pursuant to the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993. The manifold challenge raised the Writ Petitions has been considered and rejected by the learned single Judge. The set of Appeals, LPA Nos. 1134 of 2001 & 1342 of 2011 arising from CWJC Nos. 1658 of 2008 & 2303 of 2001, were considered by a Bench of this Court (to which one of us the Chief Justice was a party). By the judgment and order dated 21st September 2011, the Appeals were dismissed. Learned counsel Mr. Basant Kumar Chaudhary has appeared for the appellants. He does admit that the present Appeal would be covered by the above referred judgment and order dated 21st September 2011. He has, however, submitted that at the relevant time neither the learned single Judge nor the Division Bench had an occasion to consider the above referred documents now brought on the record. He has relied upon the minutes of the District Education Establishment Committee, Vaishali dated 4th May 1989 (Annexure 1) and the gradation list (Annexure 20). Mr. Chaudhary has vehemently argued that the appointment of the appellants as Headmaster by promotion was made pursuant the decision of the District Education Establishment Committee, Vaishali and according to the gradation list approved by the Regional Dy. Director of Education. This Court has already held that the appellants and such others were posted as Headmaster in contravention of the then existing guidelines issued under the Notification dated 18th December 1984 and that the said Headmasters were not promoted but were posted as such. The District Education Establishment Patna High Court LPA No.1228 of 2011 (6) dt.14-08-2013 Committee, Vaishali, under its decision dated 4th May 1989, did not recommend promotion of the appellants and such others as Headmasters in the concerned schools. On the contrary, paragraph (Ch) of the said minutes confirms that in view of the existing vacancies the District Education Establishment Committee, Vaishali had recommended the Assistant Teachers from Sl. No. 297 to 332 in the gradation list be posted as Headmaster. Hence, we are not impressed by the argument that the appellants were regularly promoted as Headmasters pursuant recommendation made by the District Education Establishment Committee, Vaishali. Mr. Chaudhary has heavily relied upon the gradation list (Annexure 20). He has submitted that the gradation list was approved by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Vaishali. Thus, the promotion of the appellants as Headmasters had received deemed approval from the Principal Secretary-cum- Commissioner, Human Resources Development Department. The contention is recorded with a view to rejecting the same. No other contention is raised before us. For the reasons recorded in the judgment and order dated 21st September 2011 passed in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 1134 of 2001 & 1342 of 2011, the Appeal is dismissed. Interlocutory Application No. 6017 of 2011 stands disposed of. (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J) Dilip.