Dr. Chandra Bhushan Singh v. The State Of Bihar

4. The Collector, Bhagalpur 5. Dr. Kanta Prasad Gupta son of Bararsi Pd. Gupta, resident of village Noorpur, Police Station Nath Nagar, District – Bhagalpur, presently working as Lecturer in Hygiene Department-cum-Acting Principal, Shri Yatindra Narayan Astang Rajkiya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Champa Nagar, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent/s =========================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, Sr. Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Majoj Kumar, AC to SC-VI Mr. Ram Vinay Sharma =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 22-01-2013 *************** There are certain elements and officers Government, who will not allow things to die down. They will reopen issues, where finality has been achieved by virtue of a Patna High Court CWJC No.5155 of 1999 dt.22-01-2013 judicial Order and due decision of the Government after deliberations. This is the impression which this Court gets after hearing the counsel for the parties. The short history behind the present litigation is that some time in the year 1984-85, the four petitioners were appointed as Lecturers in what is known as Shri Yatindra Narayan Astang Rajkiya Ayurved Mahavidyalaya, Champa Nagar, Nath Nagar, Bhagalpur. How the appointment was made is not required to be examined by the Court now due to the subsequent development in the sense that these petitioners had approached the High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 5621 of 1991 for regularization and payment of salary and allowances at par with regular or permanent Lecturer as well as for quashing the Order of cancellation of their appointment. By a detailed and well considered decision, dated 14th of July, 1995, which has been annexed as Annexure- 5 the Writ Application, the Writ Application was allowed with a direction in favour of the petitioners. The said decision was affirmed by the Division Bench and a notification dated 20th of May, 1997, contained in Annexure – 7 came to be issued. This notification indicates that the decision was taken at the highest level, as the notification is in the name of the Hon'ble Governor, duly authenticated by the competent authority under Rules of Execution Business. The names of the Teachers as well as the Patna High Court CWJC No.5155 of 1999 dt.22-01-2013 non-teaching staffs are part of the said notification, who came to be regularized. Petitioners name does figure in the said notification at serial no. 9, 11, 12 and 14. Because of the said notification, the matter was allowed to rest till a notice, contained in Annexure – 10 and 11, dated

18.05.1999 came to be issued under the signature of a Deputy Secretary of the Department of Health, Government of Bihar, Patna, asking them to show-cause as to why they ought not to removed the post as their appointment and regularization was illegal. These show-causes have been challenged in the present Writ Application. At the time of admission, after hearing the parties the impugned orders were ordered to be stayed, as would be evident from the Order, dated 21.09.2000. Writ Application was ordered to be heard and is being taken up only now for final disposal. The Court has only to examine two basic documents, which are Annexure- 5 and Annexure- 7. Annexure- 5 is the Judicial Order, whereas Annexure- 7 is the decision of the State, which is in furtherance to the implementation of the Judicial decision, conferring the benefit of regularization and treating the petitioners to be eligible for pay and privileges of a regular teacher. It was in this background that the Court had occasion to opine in the manner which it has in the opening Patna High Court CWJC No.5155 of 1999 dt.22-01-2013 paragraph of the Order that in normal course of things, the matters should have rested after issuance of Annexure- 7, dated 20.05.1997. The Court was looking for some answer from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State as to under what circumstances, Annexure- 10 and 11 was required to be issued and under whose authority. The Deputy Secretary had issued the notices to undo what had already been done and held in favour of the petitioners by the High Court as well as the decision taken by the State in terms of Annexure- 7. There is a long narration of events in the counter affidavit, as to how the appointments were made or when they were made, as to the date relating to take over, etc. What is the relevance of such statements is not appreciated or understood by the Court for the reason that all these aspects were placed before the Learned Single Judge, argued vehemently and in the well considered decision, contained in Annexure – 5, duly negated. If this was not so, there would have been no occasion for the State to accept the judicial pronouncement, implement it by issuance of notification under Annexure- 7. But it was not to be, because one limb of the State does not coordinate with the other limb or may be one Officer does not understand what the earlier stand of the State has been on such issue. Governance is all about consistency in decision making. Patna High Court CWJC No.5155 of 1999 dt.22-01-2013 A State cannot seem to be fickle minded on such issues and be expected to act as an ordinary mortal. Decision taken at a level and that too for enforcement of judicial Orders will have to be given respect. It cannot be allowed to be trivialized in the manner in which it has been done in the present case by issuance of Annexure- 10 and 11. This could be one of the vital reasons why the Learned Single Judge earlier while hearing the matter in admission, did not hesitate to grant an Order of Stay at the very threshold as well as admitted the matter for further detailed consideration, to understand the finer nuance or the mischief sought to be played by a functionary of the State. The matter is now being heard in detail. The Court is not any wiser on the issue from what the position was earlier, as is reflected from Annexure- 5 or Annexure- 7 as now. Obviously, it is a case of over-reach by one of the Deputy Secretary of Department, because they can only fish in troubled waters and not otherwise. The Court, therefore, comes to a considered opinion that Annexure- 10 and 11 were uncalled for and they are required to be quashed. The Court is, further, reinforced in with this opinion taking into consideration that most of these petitioners are verging on retirement now and the issue of their regularization conferred upon them in terms of Annexure- 7 would not be equitable to be re-opened by allowing the State to proceed on Patna High Court CWJC No.5155 of 1999 dt.22-01-2013 the basis of Annexure- 10 or 11. The Writ Application is allowed. Annexure- 10 and 11 are quashed. However, there shall be no Order as to costs. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.) Patna High Court, Patna Dated: 22.01.2013 Shashi Kant Mishra NAFR