Patna High Court - Orders
Shatrughan Pd. Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 28 June, 2013
Bench: Chief Justice, Ashwani Kumar Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15657 of 2012
======================================================
1. Shatrughan Prasad Singh, S/O Shri Raghunandan Singh, R/O Village-
Dumari, P.O.+P.S.- Pyarepur, District- Munger.
2. Chandra Kant Singh, S/O Late Kailash Pati Singh, R/O Village- Dabil,
P.S.-Jamui, District- Jamui.
3. Nand Kumar Singh, S/O Shree Ram Lal Mahto, R/O Village- Dighant,
P.O.+P.S.- Keyar (Sikandra), District- Jamui.
4. Rabindra Kumar Singh, S/O Shree Triveni Prasad Singh, R/O Village-
Petaria, P.O.+P.S.- Amrath, District- Jamui.
5. Dev Narayan Mahto, S/O Shree Mishri Mahto, R/O Village- Eton, P.S.-
Mananpur, District- Munger.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Secretary, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna
3. The Secretary, Department of Finance, Bihar, Patna
4. The Director, Primary Education, Vikas Bhawan, Patna
5. The District Education Officer, Sheikhpura
6. The District Education Officer, Lakhisarai
7. The District Education Officer, Jamui
8. The District Programme Officer, Jamui
9. The District Programme Officer, Sheikhpura
10. The District Programme Officer, Lakhisarai.
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma
Mr. Vipin Kumar, Advocates.
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)
2 Patna High Court CWJC No.15657 of 2012 (8) dt.28-06-2013
2/3
8 28-06-2013This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is filed by five Primary School Teachers, having qualification of degree/diploma/certificate in physical education, to claim parity of matric trained scale allowed to the Primary School Teachers possessing degree or certificate in education. The petitioners also challenge the Elementary School Teachers Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules of 1993') as ultra vires.
At first, we may note that although the Rules of 1993 are under challenge, there is no challenge to the specific rule or the grounds of such challenge.
In course of hearing, learned advocate Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma appearing for the writ petitioners has submitted that what the writ petitioners challenge is Clause (12) of Section 2 of the Rules of 1993. The said Clause (12) defines the word 'trained' to mean a person who has (i) two years training in education (B. Ed.) or (ii) Diploma in Education (Dip. in Ed.) or Diploma in Teaching (Dip. in Teach.) or (iii) one year's training during service. Mr. Sharma has submitted that insofar as the said definition does not include persons possessing training in physical education, the same is arbitrary and contrary to Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. The contention is recorded with a view to rejecting the same.
It is apparent that in the guise of challenge to the Rules of 1993, what the writ petitioners seek is parity of pay with the matric trained elementary teachers. The issue has been agitated by the writ petitioners and many others time and again before this Court and have lost. The latest in the matter of Bindeshwari Singh (CWJC No. 6985 of 1997) and cognate matters. By judgment and order dated 26th September 2011, a Bench of this Court has 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.15657 of 2012 (8) dt.28-06-2013 3/3 rejected the contention.
In our opinion, the repeated writ petitions in the same subject matter is a clear abuse of process of law. The petitioners having lost earlier have come again before this Court for the same relief under the guise of challenge to the statutory rules without challenging any particular rule on a particular ground. The present petition is barred by principle of res judicata.
The petition is dismissed with cost. Cost is quantified at Rs. 5,000/-. Each petitioner will pay a cost of Rs. 1,000/-. The amount of cost will be deposited in the registry of this Court within one month from today. On receipt of such amount, the registry of this Court will deposit the amount in the Government Treasury as cost to the State.
(R.M. Doshit, CJ)
Sujit/- (Ashwani Kumar Singh, J)