Patna High Court - Orders
Sarveshwar Jha & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 1 July, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2012
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16603 of 2007
With
Interlocutory Application No.3813 of 2012
With
Interlocutory Application No.4017 of 2013
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.834 of 2012
======================================================
1. Sarveshwar Jha S/o Sri Madhu Sudan Jha, resident of village- Bar Gaon,
P.S- Sonbarsa, Raj, District- Saharsa.
2. Pradip Kumar Verma S/o Sri Ghanshyam Lal Das, resident of Ward No.
7, D.B. Road, Saharsa, P.S+ District- Saharsa.
3. Surendra Kumar Suman S/o Late Mahendra Prasad Yadav, resident of
Ward No. -20, P.S- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa.
4. Shailesh Kumar Mishra S/o Sri Subhash Kr. Mishra, resident of village-
Kahara, P.S- Sour Bazar, District- Saharsa.
5. Kaushal Prasad Yadav S/o Banarsi Prasad Yadav, resident of Bhartiya
Nagar, Ward No. 15, P.S+ District- Saharsa.
6. Ajay Kumar Chaudhari S/o Sri Rupchand Chaudhary, resident of village-
Hakpara, P.S+ District- Saharsa.
7. Shiv Shankar Suman S/o Sri Ram Khailawan Yadav, resident of village-
Simraha, P.S+ District- Saharsa.
8. Upendra Mahta S/o Late Bateshwar Mahta, resident of village-
Mahaeshpur, P.S- Mahishi, District- Saharsa.
.... .... Appellants-petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Madhyan Bhojan, Human Resources Development, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court LPA No.834 of 2012 (4) dt.01-07-2013 2
4. The District Magistrate, Saharsa, District- Saharsa.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Koshi Division, Saharsa,
District- Saharsa.
6. The District Education Officer-cum-Chairman of Selection Committee of
Sadhan Sevi, District- Saharsa.
7. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Secretary of Selection
Committee of Sadhan Sevi, District- Saharsa
8.The Sub Divisional Education Officer-cum-Monitoring-cum-Member of
Selection Committee of Sadhan Sevi, District- Saharsa.
.... .... Respondents- Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Sr. Advocate
: Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate
: Mr. Rama Kant Singh, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, P.A.A.G.
: Mr.Vikash Kumar, A.C. to P.A.A.G.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHWANI KUMAR
SINGH
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
4 01-07-2013This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 23 rd January, 2012 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No.16603 of 2007.
Pursuant to the advertisement dated 30th March, 2007 and ensuing selection process; the appellants were temporarily appointed as Sadhan Sevi on a consolidated monthly remuneration of Rs.3,500/- for a period of eleven months in July 2007. Upon enquiry, it was learnt that there were large scale irregularities Patna High Court LPA No.834 of 2012 (4) dt.01-07-2013 3 committed in the aforesaid selection process. Although the venue of the written examination was changed, the change was not widely published, the change was notified on notice board. Most of the applicants could not reach the revised venue at the specified time. It has transpired that out of 850 applicants only 72 applicants could take the written examination at the revised venue. Pursuant to the complaints and the enquiry report, under order dated 13th November, 2007 made by the Director, Mid-day Meal, the appointment of the appellants was cancelled.
Feeling aggrieved, the appellants approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in above C.W.J.C. No.16603 of 2007. According to the appellants, the impugned order dated 13th November, 2007 was made by the Director, Mid-day Meal in violation of principles of natural justice and on the facts not borne out of the record. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the writ petition. Therefore, this Appeal.
It would not be out of place to mention here that although pending the writ petition the appointment of the appellants was not protected, they were continued as Sadhan Sevi under the Mid-day Meal scheme. The learned Single Judge has, while dismissing the writ petition, noted that pending the writ petition, the appellants were continued and has directed that they may further continue till the appointment is made afresh after proper selection.
Learned counsel Mr. Y.V.Giri has appeared for the appellants. He has taken us through the records. Mr Y.V.Giri has vehemently argued that the appellants are entitled to protection under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Before the Director, Mid-day Meal held that selection was made in contravention of Patna High Court LPA No.834 of 2012 (4) dt.01-07-2013 4 fair selection process and that several irregularities were committed in the selection process, the appellants were required to be heard. He has further submitted that the findings recorded by the Director, Mid-day Meal are contrary to the facts on record.
We are unable to agree with Mr. Y.V.Giri. It is more than apparent that large scale irregularities were committed in the selection process. More than ninety per cent of the applicants were deprived of their chance to take the examination. It has also been noted that each member had their own candidates amongst the applicants. We are, therefore, in agreement with the learned Single Judge. Further, as recorded hereinabove, the appointment of the appellants was made on 3rd July, 2007 on a contractual basis for a period of eleven months. Even if the appellants had a right to hold the post, the period expired in June, 2008. Since 3rd June 2008, the appellants have no right whatsoever to hold the post of Sadhan Sevi on which they were appointed. Any other issue raised in the writ petition, therefore, has become academic. There is no question of protecting the service of the appellants after expiry of the tenure of their appointment.
For the aforesaid reasons, Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Applications stand disposed of.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
Md.S./Pawan (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)