Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Patna High Court - Orders

Mahendra Prasad Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 7 November, 2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
            LPA No.854 of 2008
1. RAMAYAN PRASAD SON OF SHRI SHEO BACHAN
   PRASAD RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LAMI CHOUR BAZAR,
   P.S. BHORE, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ.
2. SURENDRA SINGH SON OF SHRI JHUNILAL SINGH,
   RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-JATAHA, P.S. MIRGANJ, DIST.
   GOPALGANJ.
3. GANGA SAGAR SINGH, SON OF SHRI LALJI SINGH,
   RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MAJIRAWA KALA, P.S.
   MIRGANJ, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ.
           ......................................Petitioners/Appellants.

                  Versus

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, NEW
   SECRETARIAT, PATNA.
3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TIRHUT DIVISION,
   MUZAFFARPUR.
4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BETTIAH, WEST
   CHAMPARAN.
5. THE HEAD MASTER, GOVT. BASIC SCHOOL, DOMAHA.
6. THE HEADMASTER, GOVT. BASIC SCHOOL, TALUNA.
                      .......................................Respondents.

                  WITH
             LPA No.857 of 2008
1.   MAHENDRA PRASAD SINGH SON OF SHRI
     BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-
     RAMPUR. P.S. BIJAIPUR DISTRICT GOPALGANJ.
2.   RAVINDRA KUMAR SHARMA SON OF SHRI LALLAN
     SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE IMLAULI, P.S.
     MAIRWAN, DISTRICT SIWAN.
3.   DINESH SHARMA SON OF SHRI RAGHUNATH SHARMA,
     RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-PAWARI BENGALI, P.S. AND
     DISTRICT SIWAN.
4.   BISHWANATH SINGH, SON OF SHRI SHYAMLAL SINGH,
     RESIDENT OF VILLAGE LARHPUR, P.S. SHRIPUR, DIST.
     GOPALGANJ.
5.   SHASHI BHUSHAN TIWARY SON OF SHRI NARAYAN
     DUTT TIWARY RESIDENT OF VILLAGE
     LAKSHMANPUR, P.S. ARRAH, DISTRICT ARRAH.
6.   RAMDHYAN PRASAD SON OF SHRI SHIV BARAN
     PRASAD, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-NAHARPATWA, P.S.
     BHORE, DISTRICT GOPALGANJ.
7.   DINESHWAR PASWAN SON OF SHRI MANGAL
     PASWAN, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE MANSURPUR, P.S.
     VAISHALI DISTRICTI VAISHALI.
            ......................................Petitioners...Appellants.
                                       2




                                           Versus

                    1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                    2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION SECRETARIAT,
                       PATNA.
                    3. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR, TIRHUT DIVISION,
                       MUZAFFARPUR.
                    4. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, BETTIAH (WEST
                       CHAMPARAN).
                    5. THE HEADMASTER, GOVT. BASIC SCHOOL, DOMAHA,
                       DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN.
                    6. THE HEADMASTER, GOVT. BASIC SCHOOL, TALUNA,
                       DIST. WEST CHAMPARAN.
                           ......................................Respondents-Respondents.

                    7. GORAKHLAL SINGH S/O MAHADEO SINGH R/O-
                       JATAHA, P.S. MIRGANJ DIST. GOPALGANJ.
                            ......................................Petitioner...Respondents.

                                           -----------

10/   07.11.2009

Heard the parties and perused the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Respondent No.4 as well as the order of Writ Court under Appeal dated 19.08.2008 whereby three writ petitions preferred separately by the appellants were dismissed with a finding that the writ petitioners/appellants have not come with clean hands and the counter affidavit disclosed that the Memo Number on Annexure 1 to the writ petition said to be letter of appointment is in fact a Memo Number on another document contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit which related to appointment of teachers in the district of 3 Vaishali and not in the district of East Champaran, to which the appellants claim to have been appointed. The Writ Court has also given a finding that the minimum educational qualification in the advertisement was of Matriculation with training and the appellants have the educational qualification of Intermediate but they have no qualification of Training and as such they were not qualified to be considered and selected for the appointment which the appellants have claimed to be legal and valid.

            On      behalf        of     appellants,           it    was

submitted         that      the        notice        given     to    the

appellants by way of show cause notice was on the ground that their appointment has been found to be illegal and unconstitutional. The grievance of the appellants is that there was no separate show cause and enquiry before holding that the appointment letters were not genuine. It is their further grievance that no separate enquiry report was prepared or supplied to the appellants.

After considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings 4 given by the Writ Court, particularly that the minimum qualification of Training was not satisfied by the appellants, we are of the view that writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution could not have been exercised in favour of the appellants to grant any relief in the matter. We are also satisfied that sufficient opportunity had been given to the appellants by way of show cause notice before arriving at the opinion that their appointments were invalid.

In the facts of the case, we find no merit in this appeal. Therefore, it is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.

(Shiva Kirti Singh, ACJ.) ( Shyam Kishore Sharma, J. ) kksinha/-