THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR v. PATNA
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4447 of 2011 ====================================================== ALI IMAM SON OF ABDUL RAZAQUE, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAHAYAR CHAK, STATION PHULWARISHARIF, DISTRICT PATNA .... .... Petitioner POST OFFICE ALAMPUR GONDPURA, POLICE 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HRD DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, Versus PATNA 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA 5. THE DSE, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 6. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 7. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH THE CHIEF SECRETARY 8. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HRD DEPARTMENT, STATE OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 9. THE DIRECTOR, SECONDARY EDUCATIon, Human Resources Development
Legal Reasoning
DEPARTMENT STATE OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI 10. THE RDDE, SANTHAL PARGANAS, DUMKA, JHARKHAND 11. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SAHEBGANJ, JHARKHAND 12. THE ADDL. SECRETARY, OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA, BIUHAR, PATNA. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. N.K.Malhotra, Sr.Advocate Md.K.Akhtar & Miss Mitali For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to AAG ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH ORAL ORDER 7 31-10-2013 The petitioner prays for quashing of order contained in Letter no. 705/Lok dated 8.2.2010, (Annexure 37) issued under signature of the Addl. Secretary to the office of the Lokayukta, Bihar issued pursuant to order of the Hon‟ble Lokayukta, Bihar, wherein petition dated 4.12.2009 (Annexure 36) filed by the petitioner against order contained in Memo no. 1218 dated 15.4.2009 of respondent Director, Secondary Education, Bihar and Memo no. 2311 dated 20.7.2009, (Annexure 35) passed by respondent Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Patna High Court CWJC No.4447 of 2011 (7) dt.31-10-2013 2/5 Department have been rejected. The petitioner further prays for quashing of order contained in Memo no. 1218 dated 15.4.2009(Annexure 33), passed by the Director, Secondary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar whereby his prayer under representation dated 28.7.2008 (Annexure 32) pursuant to the observation made by the Chief State Information Commission, Bihar, Patna vide letter dated 24.7.2008 (Annexure 30) has been rejected on the ground that previously the matter has been adjudicated in this Court. The petitioner has similarly prayed for quashing of order dated 20.7.2009 (Annexure 35) of Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (respondent no 2) by which appeal dated 27.4.2009 (Annexure 31) has been rejected. The facts of the case in short is that the petitioner was appointed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Santhal Parganas Division, Dumka vide his letter bearing Memo no. 3273-75 dated 14.4.2008 only for three months. Thereafter in view of letter no. 698 dated 23.9.1988 of Additional Director of Education, Ranchi service of the petitioner was continued till further orders. The petitioner performed his duty to the satisfaction of the respondents till be became ill on 31.12.1995. According to the petitioner he remained absent from his duty from 31.12.1995 Patna High Court CWJC No.4447 of 2011 (7) dt.31-10-2013 3/5 till 26.10.1997 without leave as he was suffering from prolonged jaundice and infective hepatitis. It appears that the District Superintendent of Education, Patna Division, Patna accepted petitioner‟s joining stating that his joining is accepted in anticipation of the order of the Director, Secondary Education and the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna. It appears that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled vide order dated 7.12.1993 of Director, Secondary Education. The petitioner filed
Decision
C.W.J.C.No. 1963 of 1994, Annexure 9 which was disposed of on 14.2.1995 with the following direction:- „In my view, the petitioner should file a fresh representation before the Director, Secondary education who would examine as to whether the case of the petitioner is similar to one Kabindra Kumar Singh or not, and if he comes to the conclusion that the petitioner „s case is similar to that of Kavindra Kumar Singh, he shall pass similar order I relation to the petitioner as well.‟ The respondents after consideration of materials on record came to the conclusion that the case of the petitioner is different from that of Kavindra Singh vide letter no. 405 dated 4.5.1996. Being aggrieved, the petitioner filed C.W.J.C.No. 5992 of 1996, Annexure 12. The writ petition was dismissed on 20.11.1996 with observation that if the petitioner applied for a job in the Government, he will be entitled to age relaxation for the period he Patna High Court CWJC No.4447 of 2011 (7) dt.31-10-2013 4/5 worked in the Education Department. It appears that in view of letter dated 11.11.1997 of RDDE, the petitioner was claiming that his joining was already accepted. He again moved this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 1532 of 1999. The writ petition was disposed of vide order dated 23.8.1999, Annexure 18 with direction to the petitioner to approach the authority concerned. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondents. In paragraph 9 respondents state that the petitioner‟s matter was not similar to one Sri Kavindra Singh. While appointing the petitioner, the procedure relating to appointment had not been followed. They further state that no advertisement was ever issued and there is nothing on record to suggest that any panel was prepared. Furthermore, no approval of Establishment committee was taken. In paragraph 10 it is stated that even after order dated 20.11.1996 passed by this court in C.W.J.C.No. 5992 of 1996 dismissing the application, the petitioner continued in service despite issuance of order of termination on 7.12.1993. Respondents have annexed order dated 31.10.2002, passed in C.W.J.C.No. 10694 of 2002. Paragraph 13 of the counter affidavit is quoted herein below for easy reference:- “That it is stated that the petitioner assailing the aforesaid order of termination which was dismissed vide order dated 31.10.2002 with following observation:- „if being aware of those orders, but suppressing the same, he Patna High Court CWJC No.4447 of 2011 (7) dt.31-10-2013 5/5 filed the writ petition he must be prima facie held party to withholding or suppression of the relevant information and attempt to mislead this court for causing wrongful gain to the petitioner.‟ the Hon‟ble High court was further pleased to direct the Director General, Investigation Bureau, Cabinet (Vigilance) Department for inquiry in respect of the conduct of the concerned officer and office staffs as well as the advocate and submit a report to this court. This case was finally disposed of vide order dated 19.1.2004 as the fact were brought to the notice of the Hon‟ble court that prima facie case had been found against the officer involved under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and accordingly he was directed to institute the case and take the matter to its logical conclusion in accordance with law.” The petitioner has filed 2nd suppl. affidavit stating that one Rafi Ansari has been reinstated in service with all consequential benefits and his case is similar as such direction may be given to the respondents to consider his case. In the facts and circumstances of the case as well as keeping in view various orders passed by this court in different cases filed by petitioner I am not inclined to grant any such direction. The appointment of the petitioner has already been found to be illegal. This writ petition is disposed of. Shashi. (Samarendra Pratap Singh, J)