Uma Nath Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 October, 2016

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Patna High Court - Orders

Uma Nath Singh vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 24 October, 2016

Bench: Jyoti Saran

                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1726 of 2016
                 ======================================================
                 Uma Nath Singh
                                                                      .... .... Petitioner/s
                                                   Versus
                 The State of Bihar & Ors
                                                                     .... .... Respondent/s
                 ======================================================
                 Appearance :
                 For the Petitioner/s    :    Mr. Nityanand Mishra, Advocate
                                              Mr. Balmeeki Pandey Bhaskar, Advocate
                 For the Respondent/s      : Mr. Rewti Kant Raman, AC to SC-11
                 ======================================================
                 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN
                 ORAL ORDER

3   24-10-2016

The order impugned reflects that the appointment of the petitioner has been terminated on two grounds, namely:

(a) That he was overage on the date of appointment;

and

(b) He has interpolated his marks obtained in Teacher's Training, to gain appointment. Mr. Nityanand Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that in so far as the allegation regarding overage is concerned, as a one time exercise, the candidates belonging to reserved category were granted age relaxation and evidence can be found at page 53 of the proceedings which is in respect of some of the teachers. He submits that although the name of the petitioner is not present there but on principles, a decision taken for age relaxation would apply to the petitioner. He submits that the petitioner was Patna High Court CWJC No.1726 of 2016 (3) dt.24-10-2016 2 overage by barely two months.

In so far as allegation (b) is concerned, he submits that there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner rather it is the respondents themselves who have calculated the marks treating the total marks as 1400 though it is 1500. He submits that whatever be the nature of allegation, there was no misrepresentation by the petitioner to seek appointment by misrepresenting his marks. He submits that the petitioner joined service in 1991 and has been terminated by the impugned order dated 26.11.2015 present at Annexure-15 on completely erroneous grounds. It is submitted that whereas the enquiry report present at Annexure-16 exonerates the petitioner, in absence of any evidence to drive home the charges but the disciplinary authority by serving second show cause has proceeded to pass the impugned order.

Let the records of the disciplinary proceeding be produced by the learned State Counsel on the next date.

It is stated at the Bar that there are other cases as well, connected with the issue at hand.

Let this matter come up under the same heading on 21st of November, 2016 along with CWJC No.3908 of 2016, CWJC No.3921 of 2016, CWJC No.4004 of 2016, CWJC Patna High Court CWJC No.1726 of 2016 (3) dt.24-10-2016 3 No.4320 of 2016, CWJC No.3850 of 2016, CWJC No.3860 of 2016 and CWJC No.4061 of 2016, CWJC No.18888 of 2015, CWJC No.18795 of 2015, CWJC No.1245 of 2015, CWJC No.628 of 2015, CWJC No.12524 of 2015, CWJC No.12223 of 2016, CWJC No.13317 of 2016, CWJC No.12542 of 2016, CWJC No.11035 of 2016 and 11069 of 2016.

(Jyoti Saran, J) SKPathak/-

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Patna High Court - Orders