Patna High Court - Orders
Bachchi Roy vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 14 November, 2014
Author: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
Bench: Ajay Kumar Tripathi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21081 of 2013
======================================================
1. Bachchi Roy W/O Sri Ram Sevak Roy R/O Village- Kharahiya, P.S.-
Hasanpur, District- Samastipur
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through the Secretary, Secondary Primary and Adult
Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Secretary, Secondary Primary and Adult Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Department Of Secondary, Primary
and Adult Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna
4. The District Education Officer, District- Samastipur
5. The Principal, Project Balika Uchch Vidyalaya Mangalgarh, Hasanpur,
Distt.- Samastipur
6. The Accountant General, Bihar, Patna
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma
For the State : Mr. Gyan Shankar, AC to GP 6
For the Accountant General : Mr Ranjan Kumar
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI
ORAL ORDER
2 14-11-2014Annexure-7 dated 20th of April, 2010 issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar is under challenge in the present writ application. By virtue of this order, the claim of the petitioner for regularization of service under a project school known as Ram Shakhi Balika High School, Mangalpur, Samastipur has been rejected on the basis of the recommendation and decision taken with regard to the status of the petitioner. The reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner is said to be that she was overage at the time of her initial engagement or appointment by the managing Patna High Court CWJC No.21081 of 2013 (2) dt.14-11-2014 2/6 committee.
There has been long history of litigation with regard to appointments and their status under the project schools, which were set up in the State of Bihar with certain object and purpose in the year 1984- 86. The litigations travelled right up to Hon'ble Supreme Court and a decision came to be rendered by the Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar & Ors. v. Project Uchcha Vidya Sikshak Sangh & Ors., reported in 2006 (1) PLJR SC
483. In terms of the direction of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the State of Bihar through a Cabinet agreed to implement the order of the Apex Court in letter and spirit. In furtherance thereof, a three member committee was constituted to go into the authenticity of the schools as well as the employees engaged therein relating to 1984-85 phase. The committee have made their recommendations and based on the recommendation, the final decisions have been notified under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education.
It is widely known that in expectation of some kind of takeover or recognition by the State, the private managing committees made random appointments without following any procedure. Most of the time such appointees are either kith or kin or near and dear ones. There was no occasion to follow Article Patna High Court CWJC No.21081 of 2013 (2) dt.14-11-2014 3/6 14 or 16 of the Constitution of India may be as the management of such institutions was in private hands. However, since the parameters came to be laid down by the Apex Court, the State of Bihar has tried to implement and enforce it strictly within the parameters of the said judgment or decision.
In the case of the present petitioner, there is no dispute that the date of birth of the petitioner is stated to be 14.7.1944. She was purportedly appointed on 1.1.1983 at age of 39 years. The maximum age permissible for appointment of untrained teachers as it then was, was 30 years. The petitioner was overage and that is the reason for rejection of the claim of the petitioner as contained in Annexure- 7. In normal course of things, therefore, petitioner would have superannuated in the month of July, 2002. This aspect has significance because any right of the petitioner for consideration would come into play on the basis of the decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which was in the year 2006. The exercise was carried out in the year 2008 and thereafter the impugned order came to be passed. In other words, the petitioner was not in service when the exercise was carried out. In fact, there was no requirement at all for carrying out such exercise, if the petitioner was not on the rolls at the time when such a decision was required to be taken by Patna High Court CWJC No.21081 of 2013 (2) dt.14-11-2014 4/6 the three member committee.
Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon decisions rendered in various cases where Hon'ble High Court came to interfere wherever a rejection of the claim has been based on the ground of overage. Some of the decisions, which have been pressed into service, are reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 21, 2014 (4) PLJR 40 as well as some portions of a Full Bench decision, which travelled to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, reported in 2000 (1) PLJR 287 as well as the Apex court decision reported in 2006 (1) PLJR SC 483.
The distinguishing feature between those cases and their ratio is the fact of this case. In all those cases petitioners were very much in service at the time when the exercise was being done to enforce or implement the directive of the Hon'ble Apex Court. Even according to the petitioner she was not there at the time when such exercise was done. In other words, a person cannot be extended the benefit by interfering with impugned decision as both the facts of the majorly overage and not being in service is not in dispute. The petitioner had well passed her prime and back to domesticity after the so-called age of superannuation in the year 2002 itself whereas the exercise was done in the year 2008.
Patna High Court CWJC No.21081 of 2013 (2) dt.14-11-20145/6
Learned counsel thereafter tries to assail the decision on the ratio and the principle rendered in the case of Mohinder Singh Gill, reported in AIR 1978 SC 851, especially paragraph 8. With due respect to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Hon'ble Apex Court in M.S. Gill case had clearly held that an order of statutory or a quasi judicial authority cannot be supplemented, or explained by affidavits . Here the order is of an administrative authority notifying the factual position emerging from the recommendation of the three men committee. Even otherwise even if such a reasoning is ignored, the facts stand that the petitioner was nowhere in service at the time when the exercise was done and when the three men committee carried out a physical or spot inspection to find out the strength as well as existence of the staff and teachers of the said project schools for regularisation.
In the above stated factual position, none of the principles relied upon by the learned counsel representing the petitioner comes to the aid of the petitioner. The impugned order is not required to be interfered with and this Court also certifies that there was no occasion for the respondents to consider her claim since she had already superannuated or deemed to have superannuated in the year 2002 itself, many many years prior to Patna High Court CWJC No.21081 of 2013 (2) dt.14-11-2014 6/6 exercise as well as decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court Writ application, therefore, stands dismissed being devoid of merit.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) sk U