====================================================== 1. Dineshwar Jha S/O Late Anugrah Jha R/O Vill- Kalapatti, P.S- Phulparas, Distt v. 1. The State Of Bihar through Co
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18471 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Dineshwar Jha S/O Late Anugrah Jha R/O Vill- Kalapatti, P.S- Phulparas, Distt- Madhubani At Present Head Master Of Sri Vishnu Datta Mishra Sanskrit High School, Baruhi, P.S- Sahar, Distt- Bhojpur 2. Ramji Rai S/O Late Ramchandra Rai R/O Vill- Baruhi, P.S- Sahar, Distt- Bhojpur At Present An Assitant Teacher Of Sri Vishnu Datta Mishra Sanskrit High School, Baruhi, P.S- Sahar, Distt- Bhojpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Commissioner-Cum-Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Special Director (Secondary Education) (Sanskrit),Department Of Human Resources Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board through Its Secretary, East Boring Canal Road, Patna 4. The Chairman, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna 5. The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, East Boring Canal Road, Patna 6. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Gajendra Kumar Jha, Advocate Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha, Advocate For the State : Mr. Anjani Kumar, AAG 10 Mr Sanjay Prsad, AC to AAG 10 For B.S.S.Board : Mr Shashank Shekhar Jha, Advocate For the Intervener : Mr Aditya Narain Singh, Advocate Mr Ajay Kumar Sharma, Advocate Ms Arpana Kumar, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 5 18-02-2013 The prime question which arises for consideration in the present case is whether certain individuals have a freedom to play with the judicial system, sully the stream of justice and shake off past adjudications made, which have been raised even in the present writ application.
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.18471 of 2009 (5) dt.18-02-2013 2/7 This Court has no hesitation in recording at the very
Legal Reasoning
outset that the petitioner is prima facie guilty of suppressing facts and misleading the High Court by not stating as well as bringing all aspects of the ongoing dispute to the knowledge of the single Judge while obtaining an order in CWJC No.18471 of 2009. When the learned single Judge was told about the conduct of the petitioner, the review application filed on behalf of the present intervener was allowed and that is how the writ is again before this Court for re-adjudication. The two petitioners have not been getting salary for a long period of time. There is historical reasons for that. The origin relates to the time when a school known as Shri Vishnudutt Mishra Sanskrit High School was set up at Baruhi in the district of Bhojpur. This school had due recognition from the authorities including the Board. The teachers so appointed in the said school were also recognized and they continued to work without any impediment of any kind from anybody. Problem arose when the managing committee of the said institution tried to shift the school to yet another location for a reason of more space and better building being available which was at Bajaria. The school worked at Bajaria for a while and there is an old saying in English that nature abhors vacuum, therefore, the vacuum left behind on the Patna High Court CWJC No.18471 of 2009 (5) dt.18-02-2013 3/7 shifting of the original institution was utilized by a set of dishonest persons by setting up yet another school at the original place at Baruhi by having a parallel managing committee as well as set of teachers with identical name.. Petitioner no.1 is said to have been recognized or appointed or proclaimed himself as the working Headmaster of the said institution as is his case along with petitioner no.2, who is supposed to be an Assistant Teacher. The relocation of the school from Baruhi became a bone of contention and a hue and cry was raised by the villagers which led to intervention at the level of the State. A direction was issued upon the management as well as the teachers, including the present intervener to relocate or go back to Baruhi forthwith. There is enough material to show that their recognition was not an issue. The only thing which was required to be done was that the school will now operate from Baruhi. This was bound to create problems for the so-called phoney management committee, which had set itself up in absence of the original institution. They approached the High Court many many years ago by filing a writ application which included the petitioners. They got an order in their favour from single Judge, which came to be challenged before an LPA Bench in which the present petitioners were very much a party. The LPA in question Patna High Court CWJC No.18471 of 2009 (5) dt.18-02-2013 4/7 is LPA No.152 of 1988, a copy of the LPA order is Annexure- 3 to the Interlocutory Application, i.e. IA No.3116 of 2012. This IA is allowed because the intervener has a rightful claim to be heard in the present dispute, especially when large scale suppression of facts has been made by the petitioner in filing of the present writ application, which was initially allowed but then the order was withdrawn in civil review. A reading of Annexure- 3 gives a complete picture of the background of the dispute, which has been going on from mid 80 decades. The claim and assertion made by the management of so- called managing committee or the parallel managing committee of Shri Vishnudutt Mishra Sanskrit High School along with the present petitioners were very much before the Division Bench. The Division Bench, comprising of erstwhile Chief Justice, heard the matter in detail and dismissed the writ application by interfering and holding that the said order of learned single Judge was based on wrong facts and law and directed the respondent authorities to make payment of salary in favour of all those persons, who were appellants including the present intervener negating the claim of the present petitioners. The order of the Division Bench is dated 23rd of April, 1996. In normal course of things the matter should have been Patna High Court CWJC No.18471 of 2009 (5) dt.18-02-2013 5/7 allowed to rest at that. I am told that the present petitioners and the parallel managing committee went before the Hon’ble Apex Court against the Division Bench decision but in absence of any authentic details having been produced by the intervener and plea of ignorance being taken on behalf of the petitioners, the matter is being judged on the basis of the order passed by the LPA Bench. It is evident that after passing of the order by the LPA Bench, a decision was taken by the Chairman of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board to implement the order in letter and spirit. Payment of salary etc was required to be made to the present intervener and the other persons, who were before the LPA Bench, with a clear finding recorded in Annexure- 7. It would be evident from the document which is part of the earlier review application that the Chairman had also held that the so- called school of which the petitioner no.1 is claiming to be the Headmaster was a parallel school. He had drawn undue advantages and taken salary etc., which was required to be recovered and paid to the beneficiaries of the LPA order. However, all these aspects were never pleaded, urged or brought before this Court in the writ application pleading discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the respondents in not paying salary to the two petitioners. It was in this background that the Court in the opening Patna High Court CWJC No.18471 of 2009 (5) dt.18-02-2013 6/7 part of the order expressed its opinion with regard to conduct of the two petitioners and opined that it was an out and out case of suppression as well as an effort to overcome settled position, settled way back in the year 1996 by Division Bench, by filing repeated writ application by not disclosing true facts. The Court, therefore, comes to a considered opinion that the two petitioners have been dishonest in their conduct by not assisting the Court fairly and not disclosing all aspects of the dispute in the present writ application. This was the reason why while allowing the present writ application in round one in the order dated 20th of September, 2010, the learned single Judge got carried away by simplicity of the presentation and assertion of the claim of the two petitioners. The Court is grateful to the intervener for having brought the correct position on record by decisively seeking a review of the earlier order as well as assisting this Court at the present juncture.
Decision
In view of the above, the writ application is dismissed. A cost of Rs.25,000/- (Twenty five Thousand) each is imposed upon the two petitioners because this Court is of the opinion that the stream of justice was sought to be sullied by a deliberate and conscious act by the two petitioners with an object to overcome a judicial pronouncement made by the Division Bench of this Court, Patna High Court CWJC No.18471 of 2009 (5) dt.18-02-2013 7/7 by suppression of facts when the said decision has never been interfered with and set aside at any point of time. The cost has to be deposited by the two petitioners before the Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of eight weeks from today. Writ is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk