Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Satya Narayan Yadav on 6 April, 2010
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
L.P.A. No. 1492/2009
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Madhubani.
5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Dinesh Thakur, son of late Surya Narayan Thakur, resident of Village-Majhaura, P.O. and
P.S.-Bahera, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1503/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Satya Narain Thakur, son of Late Sitaram Thakur, resident of village-Lallu Chhapra, P.S.-
Paroo, District-Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1505/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee, through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, H.R.D. Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. '
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
6. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.
7. The Headmaster, Project Girls High School, Hirni Kuseshuar Sthan, Darbhanga.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Ram Sundar Yadav, Son of Sri Nathuni Yadav, R/o Village-Baghant, P.S.-Manigachhi,
District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1521/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
2
Versus
Baban Kumar Singh, son of Sri Shiv Prasad Singh, resident of Village-Jian, P.O.-
Aiamabishunpur, P.S.-Karja, District-Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No 1533/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. Principal Secretary through Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Rajiv Kumar Dubey, son of Hari Kishore Dubey, Village-Bhaluahia, P.S.-Adapur, District-
East Champaran.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1554/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Three Men Committee through Member of Additional Commissioner-cum-Secretary
H.R.D.D. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
6. The District Education Officer, Banka.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Surendra Prasad Yadav, Son of Shri Gulab Chandra Yadav, Resident of Village-Manjhli,
P.S.-Chandan, District-Banka.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1556/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Ajay Kumar Pandey, son of Raj Kishore Pandey, resident of Moh.-Purani Bazar, Brahman
Tolly, P.S.-Muzaffarpur Town, District-Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1572/2009
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
5. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Bhaglu Mishra, Son of Late Chandra Narayan Mishra, resident of village-Nehra, P.S.-
Manigachhi, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1577/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Additional Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Art Culture and Youth, Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar Patna.
5. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Munger Division, Munger.
7. The District Education Officer, Jamui.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Smt. Vidya Keshari, w/o Sri Bharat Prasad Village-Khakai Bazar, P.O.-Chakai, P.S.-
Chakai, District-Jamui.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1585/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
6. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
7. The Headmaster Project Girls High School Brahmotra, Pandoul, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Subhadra Devi, wife of Late Sunanji Choudhary, resident of village-Mehara, Police
Station-Manigachhi, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1593/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Baby Kumari, wife of Sri Sunil Kumar Singh, resident of Village-Gahilo, P.S.-Saraiya
District-Muzaffarpur.
4
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1601/2009
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Bhagalpur Division, Bhagalpur.
6. The District Education Officer, Bhagalpur
7. The Headmaster, Lalit Narayan Mishra Girls High School Bhramarpur, Bhagalpur.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Rajiv Ranjan Choudhary, Son of Sri Rajendra Prasad Choudhary, R/o Village-Sirejpur,
P.S.-Parbata, District-Khagaria.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 164/2010
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Madhubani.
5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
6. Addl. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt.
of Bihar, Patna.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Shashi Kumar Choudhary, son of Sri Mahendra Narayan Choudhary, resident of Village-
Raje, Police Station-Manigachhi, District-Madhubani.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 165/2010
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Madhubani.
5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
6. Addl. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, H.R. Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Harishchandra Kumar Jha, S/o Sri Mahendra Jha, resident of Village-Brahmpur, P.S.-
Manigachhi, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 173/2010
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Madhubani.
5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
5
Sachindra Choudhary, Son of Late Arjun Choudhary, resident of Village and P.O.-Basaith,
P.S.-Benipatti, District-Madhubani.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 182/2010
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
6. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
7. The Headmaster, Project Girls High School Benipatti, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Indra Kant Jha, son of Late Mahabir Jha, resident of Village-Narwar, P.S.-Bhairabsthan,
District-Madhubani.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 185/2010
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Three Men Committee through its member, Additional Commissioner cum Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
6. The District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Uday Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Babu Singh, R/o Mohalla-Gayatri Nagar, P.S.-
Motihari, District-East Champaran.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 188/2010
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Madhubani.
5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Devendra Kumar Choudhary, son of Late Uma Kant Choudhary, P.O.-Kurso, Nadiyami,
Resident of Village-Nadiyami, (Barki Gachhi), P.S.-Sakatpur, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 194/2010
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
6
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Madhubani.
5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Ajay Kumar Mishra, son of Late Mahakant Mishra, resident of Village-Simaun, Police
Station-Raj Nagar, District-Madhubani.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 199/2010
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Madhubani.
5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Satya Narayan Yadav, Son of Sri Mauje Yadav, resident of Village and P.O.-Bathiya, P.S.-
Manigachhi, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 213/2010
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
6. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
7. The Headmaster, Project Girls High School Madhwapur, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Kripanand Jha, son of Sri Biresh Jha, Resident of Village-Baghant, P.S.-Manigachhi,
District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 235/2010
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Vaishali.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Shambhu Sah, son of Late Mozelal Sah, R/o Village-Belkunda Badanpur, P.O.-Birna,
Kakhansen, P.S.-Mahua, District-Vaishali.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 241/2010
7
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Agriculture Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary Arts Sanskriti and Youth Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Additional Commissioner-cum-Secretary Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
6. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
7. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
8. The Sub-divisional Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
9. The Principal Kudhani Project Girls High School, Khudani, Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Krishna Swaroop, Son of Shyama Pd. Sinha, resident of Mohalla-Maripur School Road,
P.S.-Kaji Mohammadpur, District-Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 355/2010
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
6. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
7. The Headmaster, Project Girls High School Benipatti, Madhubani.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Tripti Narayan Lal, son of Late Bindeshwar Lal, Resident of Village-Ujan(Lalour), P.S.-
Saketpur, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 362/2010
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
5. The District Education Officer, Madhubani.
6. The Three Men Committee, through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture & Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
7. The Headmaster, Project Girls High School Benipatti, Madhubani
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Krishna Kumar Jha, son of Sri Bala Nand Jha, resident of Village-Baghan, P.S.-
Manigachhi, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 638/2010
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
8
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
5. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Asha Devi, wife of Sri Prahlad Kumar Jha, Resident of Village-Nehra, P.S.-Manigachhi,
District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A No. 639/2010
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Addl. Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
6. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.
7. The Headmaster, Project Girls High School Dularpur, Darbhanga.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Lila Kant Jha, Son of Late Damodar Jha, resident of Village and P.O. Baghant, P.S.-
Manigachhi, District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 633/2010
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.
6. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.
7. The Headmaster, Project Girls High School Darhar, Darbhanga.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
Laxman Jha, Son of Shri Ram Chandra Jha, resident of village-Baghant, P.S.-Manigachhi,
District-Darbhanga.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
With
L.P.A. No. 1483/2009
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Three Men Committee through its Chairman-cum-Secretary, Art, Culture and Youth
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur.
5. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Respondents/Appellants
Versus
9
Nand Kishore Prasad Singh, Son of Narayan Pd. Singh, resident of Mohalla-Chandwar
Soda Godown, P.S.-Muzaffarpur Town, District-Muzaffarpur.
-------------- Petitioner/Respondent
-----------
For the Appellants :- Mr. Ritesh Kumar AC to AAG1
For the Respondent :- Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Sunil Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Gyan Shankar, Adv.
------------
PRESENT- THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
ORDER
(6.4.2010)
AS PER MIHIR KR.JHA,J.
1. Having heard learned counsel for the
parties as also taking into consideration the facts and
circumstances mentioned in the connected interlocutory
applications, the delay in filing of these appeals are hereby
condoned.
2. In the batch of these appeals, the appellants
have assailed the order of the learned single Judge allowing
the writ petition of the respondent writ petitioners by
setting aside their order of termination with a direction to
reinstate them in service with all consequential benefits.
3. At the out set it must be made clear that the
batch of these appeals arise out of the different orders of
the learned Single Judge dated 19.3.2009, 24.3.2009,
25.3.2009, 30.3.2009, 22.4.2009, 1.5.2009 and 12.5.2009.
From the perusal of those orders it further becomes clear 10 that the order dated 30.3.2009 and 22.4.2009 were based on the earlier order dated 25.3.2009, whereas the order dated 1.5.2009 and 12.5.2009 were based on the order dated 24.3.2009. Thus in effect there are three orders passed by the learned Single Judge dated 19.3.2009, 24.3.2009 and 25.3.2009 which are required to be gone into in all these appeals.
4. A bare perusal of the order dated 19.3.2009 which are the subject matter of L.P.A.No. 1577/2009 (State of Bihar & ors. vs. Smt. Vidya Keshari) and L.P.A. No. 185/2010 (State of Bihar and ors. vs. Uday Kumar Singh) would go to show that the same related to the first phase of project schools of the year 1981-82. These two cases being of different in nature having its own striking feature when the power of appointment on non-teaching post in such Projects Schools was vested in the Managing Committee of the school or a District Education Officer, the learned Single Judge on the basis of the earlier judgments of the Division Bench has gone to hold that the respondent- writ petitioner Smt. Vidya Keshari and Uday Kumar Singh would be entitled for reinstatement with back wages. 11
5. Next comes the order dated 24.3.2009 which was passed in C.W.J.C. No. 11375/2008 and its four analogous cases, is the subject matter of L.P.A.No. 1492/2009, L.P.A.No. 164/2010, L.P.A.No. 213/2010 and L.P.A.No. 362/2010. It may not be out of place to mention that apart from these four appeals two writ petitions C.W.J.C. No. 3780/2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 5849/2009 giving rise to L.P.A.No. 1533/2009 and L.P.A.No. 809/2010 have been also disposed of by orders dated 1.5.2009 and 12.5.2009 in terms of the aforesaid order dated 24.3.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 11375 of 2008 which is the subject matter of the aforesaid L.P.A.No. 1492/2009 and the aforesaid three appeals. All these relate to the second phase of the project schools of the year 1984-85. In such cases a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge is that some process of advertisement and selection was undergone though not the one prescribed in Circular of Personnel and Administrative Reforms dated 3.12.1980 and they have been directed to be reinstated with backwages by recording that there was substantial compliance of Article 14 of Constitution in their appointment.
12
6. Then comes the order dated 25.3.2009 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 11489/2008 and its analogous 22 cases. In these cases which are a mixed bag, relating to appointment of the project school of either second phase of 1984-85 or third phase of 1988-89, there is also dispute as with regard to sanctioned post, observance of the rules and circulars of the department in the process of appointment. L.P.A.No. 1503/2009, L.P.A.No. 1505/2009, L.P.A.No. 1521/2009, L.P.A.No. 1554/2009, L.P.A.No. 1556/2009, L.P.A.No. 1572/2009, L.P.A.No. 1585/2009, L.P.A.No. 1593/2009, L.P.A.No. 1601/2009, L.P.A.No. 165/2010, L.P.A.No. 173/2010, L.P.A.No. 182/2010, L.P.A.No. 188/2010, L.P.A.No. 194/2010, L.P.A.No. 199/2010, L.P.A.No. 235/2010, L.P.A.No. 241/2010, L.P.A.No. 355/2010, L.P.A.No. 638/2010, L.P.A.No. 639/2010, L.P.A.No. 633/2010 and L.P.A.No. 1483/2010 in fact arise out of such common order dated 25.3.2009, wherein though there is an order of reinstatement passed by the learned Single Judge but then it is only on the basis of a technical ground that the respondent- writ petitioners could not have been subjected to an enquiry and were not expected to produce the documents including 13 advertisement after 15 years to justify their appointment before the authorities in terms of the earlier orders of this Court. L.P.A.No. 800/2010 and L.P.A.No. 814/2010 though arise out of two separate orders dated 30.3.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 3701/2009 and C.W.J.C. No. 4960/2009 and 22.4.2009 but are based on order dated 25.3.2009 in C.W.J.C.No. 13685/2008 and its analogous cases, wherein a liberty has been given to the State to verify as to whether their cases were also covered by the said order dated 25.3.2009 and if it is found so, the respondent- writ petitioners of L.P.A.No. 800/2010 and L.P.A.No. 814/2010 they too have been directed to be reinstated with consequential benefits.
7. Thus, it becomes clear that the batch of these appeals are not only uncommon on facts but also in their respective results in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge, who in all of his main three orders dated 19.3.2009, 24.3.2009 and 25.3.2009 has consciously gone into the requirement of three phases of the project schools as also the judgments which have been delivered by this Court with regard to them in respect of appointment of non-teaching post in three phases of the project schools. 14
8. Learned counsel for the appellants in all these appeals have submitted that the respondent writ petitioners were appointed on various Class-III and Class- IV posts in Project Schools without following the prescribed procedure and as such their order of termination passed by the Three Men Committee appointed under the order of this Court cannot be faulted with. Counsel has accordingly commended for acceptance of the Constitution Bench judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. Vs. Uma Devi (3) & Ors. reported in 2006(4)SCC 1.
9. Learned counsels for the respondent writ petitioners on the other hand, while supporting the order of the learned single Judge, have submitted that the appointment of the respondent petitioners was made in the Project School against sanctioned post by the competent authority of the Education Department and on the basis of such appointment, they had also continued for a period of over fifteen years before being subjected to termination on the ground that their appointments were made in contravention of the Circular governing the appointment of Class-III and Class-IV employees in the Project Schools. It 15 has also been canvassed that the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uma Devi (supra) has been applied by the Three Men Committee appointed by this Court in a mechanical manner without examining the individual cases of the respondent writ petitioners.
10. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 24.3.2009 in C.W.J.C. No. 11375 of 2008 which was heard and disposed of along with C.W.J.C. No. 11758 of 2008, C.W.J.C. No. 11462 of 2008, C.W.J.C. No. 18859 of 2008 and C.W.J.C. No. 11481 of 2008 cannot be held to be bad only because the Three Men Committee had found that their appointments were made in violation of the Circular of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department bearing letter no. 16440 and 16441 dated 3.12.1980.
11. Learned counsel for the appellants in this regard could not successfully demonstrate before this Court even in one case that appointment at any point of time in Education Department on Class-III & Class-IV post was made by observing the Government Circular dated 3.12.1980. Once this aspect becomes clear that the Government Circular dated 3.12.1980 was never followed 16 in any point of time on Class-III & Class-IV post in Education Department, the same cannot be made the solitary ground for termination of the services of the respondent writ petitioners and other alike persons, who had continued in service for a period over fifteen years before being terminated for the first time in the year 2004. As a matter of fact, the two circulars of the even date 3.12.1980 were primarily meant for filling up the post of Class-III & Class-IV employees in the Collectorate and its Muffasil offices. The schools whether secondary, primary or even project schools of the State Government were never treated to be a part of the Muffasil offices of the Collectorate of the district and that is how at no point of time any of the authority of the Education Department had followed the procedure for appointment the two circulars dated 3.12.1980. In this regard, there is an impeachable evidence even in the case of appointment on Class-III & Class-IV post made in the project school that when the State Government in the year 1980-81 for the first time came out with a concept of the Project School, which had initially sought to regularize the appointment of the existing Class-III & Class-IV employees in such Project 17 Schools who were appointed by the Managing Committee as would be evidenced from the circular of the Education Commissioner dated 12.10.1982 wherein it was provided that:-
"izR;sd fo|ky; esa ,d fyfid rFkk nks vkns'kiky gksxk rFkk mudh fu;qfDr foHkkxh; fu;e ,oa izfdz;k ds vuqlkj ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk fd;k tk,xkA tgkW visf{kr ;ksX;rk okys fyfid@vkns'kiky dh fu;qfDr fo|ky; dh izca/k lfefr }kjk dh x;h gks] mldk vuqeksnu 1&1&82 vFkok muds ;ksxnku djus dh frfFk] tks ckn esa gks] ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh }kjk dh tk,xhA"
12. It is thus clear that when the State Government by letter no. 705 dated 12.10.1982 had issued its policy decision with regard to the establishment of four high schools including a girl high school in every block which came to be known as Project Schools, there was no concept of following the circular of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 3.12.1980. It is true that in the clarificatory letter issued by the Director of the Secondary Education addressed to the Regional Deputy Director of Education, South Chhotanagpur, Ranchi being letter no. 749 dated 19.11.1982, an indication was given for observing the Circular of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 3.12.1980 by providing interalia;
18
"5. f'k{kdsrj deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr ds lEcU/k esa jktdh; vkns'k la[;k 705 fnukad 12&10&82 esa fn;k x;k funsZ'k fcYdqy Li"V gSA fyfid rFkk vkns'kikyksa dks u;h fu;qfDr djus ds lEcU/k esa foHkkxh; fu;e ,oa izfdz;kvksa dk fu/kkZj.k funs'kd] ek/;fed f'k{kk&lg&fo'ks"k lfpo ds i=kad 19372&403 fnukad 22&7&81 rFkk i=kad 27127&57 fnukad 12&6&81 ,oa mlds lkFk layXu dkfeZd foHkkx ds i=kad 16440 ,oa 16441] fnukad 3&12&80 esa fd;k x;k gSA ;s vkns'k bu fo|ky;ksa esa gksus okyh f'k{kdsrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lHkh fu;qfDr;ksa ij ykxw gksaxsA ¼[k½ fo|ky; dh izca/k lfefr }kjk 1&1&82 ds iwoZ ls fu;qDr f'k{kdsrj deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr dk vuqeksnu lfefr dh vuq'kalk ds vk/kkj ij ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh djsaxsA"
the same could not be made applicable as there was no practice in the Education Department to follow the panel of Collectorate of the district, which as noted above, was exclusively confined for making appointment on Class-III & Class-IV post in the Collectorate and its Muffasil offices.
13. The situation in fact remained fluid, inasmuch as, subsequently the Education Commissioner by his letter no. 131 dated 20.2.1985 had withdrawn the power of appointment vested in the Managing Committee/District Education Officer earlier vested in them by the aforementioned Government order no. 705 dated 12.10.1982 and a further confusion had crept in on account of the issuance of letter of the Additional Commissioner of the Education Department bearing no. 142 dated 23.2.1985 19 wherein while laying down the procedure for establishment of the remaining project schools, it was provided that the non-teaching staff would be selected by the Deputy Development Commissioner through the panel made by the Collector of the district as would be evident from the following provisions made in the aforesaid circular which reads as follows:-
"¼"f'k{kdsrj deZpkfj;ksa dh fu;qfDr ds fy, p;u mi fodkl vk;qDr }kjk ftykf/kdkjh ds dk;kZy; esa cgkyh ds fy, cuk;s x;s iSuy ls fd;k tk;sxkA**
14. From the aforementioned extracted provisions, it would be again clear that there was no specific reference to observance of the Circular of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 3.12.1980 in respect of the appointment of Class-III & Class-IV employees of the Project Schools.
15. The letter of the Additional Commissioner-
cum-Special Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department bearing no. 142 dated 4.2.1989 as with regard to the appointment and payment of salary of teaching and non-teaching staffs in the Project School also nowhere had envisaged observance of the Government Circular dated 3.12.1980 issued by the Personnel & 20 Administrative Reforms Department for appointment on Class-III & Class-IV posts, inasmuch as, there also all that was said in this regard was as follows:-
"5.mi;qZDr dksfV ds fon~;ky;ksa esa izcU/k lfefr n~okjk fu;qDr vgZrk ,oa ;ksX;rk izkIr Lohd`r cy ds vUrxZr fu;qDr ,oa dk;Zjr f'k{kdsrj deZpkfj;ksa dh lsok Hkh dafMdk&I(V) esa nh izfdz;k ds vuq:i dh tk;sxhA"
16. Thus, from the different circulars issued by the Education Department on the subject of appointment on the post of teaching and non-teaching staff of the project school, it would become clear the Government had never seriously intended to make appointment on Class-III & Class-IV post in the Project Schools from the panel prepared by the Collector for appointment on Class-III & Class-IV post in the Collectorate and Muffasil offices as per the Circular of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department in its two letter nos. 16440 and 16441 both of the even date 3.12.1980. It was in this back ground that for the individual Project School for which Regional Deputy Director of Education was the controlling authority that he had followed the procedure of appointment of issuance of advertisement in newspaper and making selection from amongst the eligible candidate. 21
17. In such a situation, can it be said that mere non-observance of making appointment through the panel of the Collector for Class-III & Class-IV post by itself would become fatal after the concerned Class-III & Class-IV employees of the Project School had continued in service for more than fifteen years ?
18. In the opinion of this Court, the two Circulars dated 3.12.1980 having been not acted upon at any point of time in Education Department, so far it relates to the appointment of Class-III & Class-IV post in the high school/project school, must be taken to have become dead letter because of its long disuse, which in the legal parlance is also known as desuetude.
19. In the Francis Bennion's Statutory Interpretation, this aspect has been dealt at page 441 & 442 of 1984 Edn. wherein it has been stated that desuetude is a legal process by which, through disobedience and lack of enforcement over a long period, a statute may lost its force without express or implied repeal. In Craies Statute Law (7th Edn.) it has been stated at page 7 that desuetude is a process by which an Act of Parliament may lost its force without express repeal. It is, however, clarified therein that 22 the concept of desuetude does not however consist merely of obsolescence or disuse rather there must also be a contrary practice, which must be of some duration and general application. The Apex Court in this context in the case of Municipal Corporation for city of Pune & Anr. Vs. Bharat Forge & Ors. reported in 1995(3) SCC 434 has held as follows:-
"-------34. Though in India the doctrine of desuetude does not appear to have been used so far to hold that any statute has stood repealed because of this process, we find no objection in principle to apply this doctrine to our statutes as well. This is for the reason that a citizen should know whether, despite a statute having been in disuse for long duration and instead a contrary, practice being in use, he is still required to act as per the "dead letter". We would think it would advance the cause of justice to accept the application of doctrine of desuetude in our country also. Our soil is ready to accept this principle; indeed, there is need for its implantation, because persons residing in free India, who have assured fundamental rights including what has been stated in Article 21, must be protected from their being, say, prosecuted and punished for violation of a law which has become "dead letter". A new path is, therefore, required to be laid and trodden.------"
20. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the alleged violation of the Circular dated 3.12.1980 by itself cannot be made the solitary ground for terminating 23 the services of the Class-III & Class-IV employees of the Project School as the same was never put in force even in a single Project School of this State though such Project Schools are in the vicinity of more than five hundred in number. It has to be noted that such project schools were made Government school in phases, 150 in the first phase in the year 1981-82, 300 girls high schools in the second phase in the year 1984-85 and 104 in the third phase in the year 1988, but, not a single appointment of Class-III and Class-IV employees in these schools were made from the Collector's panel prepared in terms of the Circular of the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department dated 3.12.1980. This Court, therefore, has no hesitation in holding that the violation of Circular dated 3.12.1980 could not have made applicable for terminating the services of the respondent writ petitioners after their long continuation in service over fifteen years. Specially when such power of appointment was vested by the State Government to the District Education Officer or his superior in rank, Regional Deputy Director of Education
21. The reliance placed by the learned Counsel for the appellant on the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) is 24 also not apt and appropriate in the facts and circumstances of this case inasmuch as writ petitions of Respondent writ petitioners was not for regularisation of their service but against their individual order of termination passed by the three man committee. This aspect of the matter has been gone into at length by the learned Single Judge in his all the three main orders dated 19.3.2009, 24.3.2009 and 25.3.2009 wherein he has recorded that all these Respondents writ petitioners had been terminated on more than two occasions earlier and their such order of termination had been set aside and the matter was remitted to three man committee by a division bench. Thus in order considered opinion the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) can not be made applicable to the facts as there cases reference in this connection may be made to judgment of division bench in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey Vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2008(1) PLJR 840 where this aspect of the matter was considered in following words:-
"The judgment under appeal also appears to be on the premise as if the case is for considering regularization. The reference to Uma Devi's case (Secretary, State of Karnataka vs. Uma Devi (3) and Others :
[2006(2) PLJR (SC) 363; and Verma's case 25 (State of M.P. and Others vs. Lalit Kumar Verma; [(2007)1 S.C.C. 575] are pointer to that. The present case being not a case of claim of regularization but the termination of a permanent employee, in our opinion, both the decisions are not applicable to the present case."
It also needs to be taken into account that the aforesaid judgment of this Court in Ram Krishna Dubey (supra) has been also approved by another division bench judgment in the case of State of Bihar vs. Indra Mohan Rai reported in 2009(2) PLJR 869 wherein it was held as follows:-
"We find ourselves in respectful agreement with the view expressed by the Division Bench of this court in the case of Ram Krishna Dubey. The view taken by the Single Judge is in conformity with the aforesaid view."
22. Once, we reach to this conclusion that the judgment of Uma Devi (supra) would not be applicable in these cases there would be no difficulty in upholding the order of the learned single Judge, who in his three separate main orders dated 19.3.2009, 24.3.2009 and 25.3.2009 has meticulously examined each and every stage in which the 26 appointment of the respondent writ petitioners were scrutinized at various point of time either for the purposes of making payment of their salary or for their being regularized in service for giving them the benefit of such continuation of their service.
23. We have also carefully examined the materials on record and we find that the appellants had not filed counter affidavit in any of the connected writ petitions and had merely relied on the order of the Three Men Committee, which was passed in individual cases of the respondent writ petitioners upon the matter being remitted by this Court. All these orders passed by the Three Men Committee are routine mechanical order, which virtually is same in respect of all of them barring change of their name and school. When this Court had directed the Three Men Committee to consider the individual cases, the least that was expected of the three senior ranking officials of the State Government holding the post of Secretary they ought to have called for the individual details of the respondent writ petitioners from the respective Project Schools and/or from their controlling authority, namely, District Education Officer/Regional Deputy Director of Education and dealt 27 their cases individually for recording the illegality in their appointment. In absence thereof, the learned single Judge has rightly proceeded to quash the order of termination passed by the Three Men Committee and we have no hesitation in affirming such order.
24. There is, however, one very important aspect which has been dealt with by the learned single Judge in the subsequent orders passed by him while disposing of the similar writ petitions. The learned single Judge having quashed the order of termination in C.W.J.C. No. 11375 of 2008 and its four analogous cases on 24.3.2009 had disposed of other batch of 23 writ petitions by an order dated 25.3.2009 in CWJC No. 11489 of 2008 and its analogous cases wherein he had noted the difference sought to be pointed out by the Counsel for the State as with regard to the difference between the earlier batch of five writ petitions of CWJC No. 11375 of 2008 disposed of by a common order dated 24.03.2009. This aspect of the matter becomes clear from the order dated 25.3.2009 wherein CWJC No. 11489 of 2008 was disposed of along with, CWJC No. 11686 of 2008, CWJC No. 11753 of 2008, CWJC No. 11772 of 2008, CWJC No. 11805 of 28 2008, CWJC No. 11806 of 2008, CWJC No. 12060 of 2008, CWJC No. 16303 of 2008, CWJC No. 13685 of 2008, CWJC No. 17919 of 2008, CWJC No. 18300 of 2008, CWJC No. 13531 of 2008, CWJC No. 11577 of 2008, CWJC No. 11766 of 2008, CWJC No. 13665 of 2008, CWJC No. 17238 of 2008, CWJC No. 11790 of 2008, CWJC No. 12520 of 2008, CWJC No. 11414 of 2008, CWJC No. 11480 of 2008, CWJC No. 11388 of 2008, CWJC No. 15293 of 2008, CWJC No. 1108 of 2009, CWJC No. 18591 of 2008 & CWJC No. 13302 of 2008 . In the said common order dated 25.3.2009, he had dealt the cases where there was alleged to be no advertisement and no selection undergone by any authority in making appointment of Class-III & Class-IV post in project schools. The learned single Judge, while allowing those writ petitions, had held as follows:-
"The question to the mind of this Court is whether the action of the Respondents in calling upon the petitioners to produce advertisement with regard to an event which took place nearly 18-20 years ago and a conclusion arrived at in negative that the petitioners were unable to produce the advertisement is reasonable. It leaves this Court baffled. A person appointed in service, preserves the papers with to the appointment for a reasonable period of time. After a reasonable period of time, when a person is settled in his job, the papers relating to appointment, (with exception to 29 the appointment letter), the advertisement loses its sheen. The action of the Respondents in calling for the advertisement nearly 18-20 years old on the face of it is unreasonable. It was for the Respondents to go through their archives and record a positive finding that their records do not reflect any proposal for an advertisement much less an advertisement. The findings arrived at in the impugned order is in the negative as if the Respondents do not wish to commit themselves and take responsibility for what they say.
The Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 1362 of 2005 and analogous cases noticed two diametrically opposite reports on facts. One, that the appointments were legal, and the second that the appointments were not legal. In this background, the Division Bench recorded that the matter required a factual probe.
The direction of the Court was clear. The Respondents were required to consider both the reports on facts and then arrive at a conclusion which report was correct, for what reasons, and the reasons why one of the reports was not acceptable. If further enquiry was required, the respondents could also do so. The impugned order contains no discussion of either of the reports. It does not reject the earlier report in favour of the petitioners which the Division Bench had thought prudent not to set aside also, but directed a factual enquiry. The respondents in the garb of the Court order have refused to look into a document which they perhaps found inconvenient to deal with. This is per se evidence of arbitrariness.
If the Respondents have chosen consciously, knowingly and willingly to disobey the direction of the Division Bench, they have themselves to blame for this batch of the writ applications to be allowed.
The law stands settled that an order passed in teeth of an order of the Court is a nullity. If the Respondents 30 have chosen to ignore the direction of the Division Bench, this Court has little option but to set aside the impugned order dated 27.05.2008 on that ground."
25. While this Court has approved the order of the learned single Judge dated 24.3.2009 in CWJC No. 11375 of 2008 and its four analogous case as the same was fully covered by some sort of advertisement and process of selection, it would like to only make it clear that for such appointment, the State will be at liberty to make further enquiry limited to the availability of sanctioned post on which the appellant writ petitioners were working prior to their termination and if it finds that there was a sanctioned post of clerk or peon (there being only one sanctioned post of Clerk and two post of Peon), the appellants would proceed to examine the fulfillment of the requisite qualification by the concerned respondent writ petitioners on the date of their appointment. If it is found that they were also having requisite qualification and their appointment letter was issued by the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education and/or District Education Officer, they too alike the five writ petitioners covered by the order dated 24.3.2009 in CWJC No. 11375 of 2008 and its analogous cases, would be taken back in service. If 31 however it is found that their appointment was made against an unsanctioned post and/or they did not possess the requisite qualification or were appointed by an incompetent authority they would not be reinstated in service but would only be given an opportunity to get selected in the fresh process. This Court has to adopt this principle because if the initial appointment was made without existence of a sanctioned post and/or an authority having no power to make appointment in Project Schools and/or without undergoing any process of selection, such appointment being void cannot be saved even by process of regularization.
26. This very aspect of the matter was gone into by the learned single Judge himself while disposing of other set of writ applications on or after 25.3.2009 wherein a liberty has been given to the appellants of the individual cases as would be evident from one of such order dated 12.5.2009 in CWJC No. 5848 of 2009, wherein, it was held as follows:-
"-------The writ application is disposed of with the observation that the Respondents are obliged to consider the claim of the petitioner in light of the order dated 24.3.2009 in CWJC No. 11375 of 2008 and analogous cases.32
Should the Respondents be of the opinion that the petitioner is not similarly situated, they are required to pass a reasoned and speaking order setting out the grounds of difference to their satisfaction for which the petitioner in their view can be stated not to be similarly situated, so as to facilitate judicial review by this Court, should the occasion arise."
27. It would thus becomes clear that the bench mark by the learned single Judge is the judgment dated 24.3.2009 in CWJC No.11375 of 2008 operative portion whereof reads as follows:-
"Regularization is not a mode of appointment. It is only a method of curing an irregularity. If there has been substantive compliance of the procedures of appointment, though not stricto senso compliance, the appointment shall fall in the category of irregular appointment, which may be remedied keeping in mind certain factors. The striking features of the present case are the admission by the Respondents of the advertisement, inviting of applications, a comparative assessment of merits and then selection of candidates. Once the constitution of a committee, the Divisional Establishment Committee, is not in dispute, that it was headed by the Regional Deputy Director or the District Education Officer, who may have been members therein only and the committee should have been headed by the District Magistrate only, makes the committee irregular and not illegal. Likewise, if the appointment order has been issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education also, who is superior in the rank to the District Education Officer, it was at best an irregular appointment, if it be so, having been issued by a superior authority. It has been noticed above that some of the appointments have been 33 made by the District Education Officer.
This Court arrives at the conclusion that the appointment was at best irregular for which sustenance is drawn from the judgment in the case of K.A. Abdul Majeed (supra) relied upon by the petitioners.
Once this Court arrives at the conclusion that the appointment was irregular even as per the case of the Respondents in the impugned order, of the petitioners being continued since 1988 or likewise for long duration, paragraph 53 of the judgment of Uma Devi, noticed above, applies with full force. It has been held therein that those, who have been working on sanctioned post for more than 10 years without intervention of court's order or tribunals, may be considered for regularization as a one time measure. A person coming for salary to this Court when the Respondents do not raise objection with regard to the illegality of appointment, does not continue in service under the umbrella of protection under the orders of the Court. Moreso, when the Respondents without questioning the appointment commence payment of salary. This Court finds it peculiar despite the law on illegal and irregular appointments having been discussed by more than one judgment of this Court and the Apex Court, the Respondents persist in holding to the contrary. From the impugned order it appears that the appointment was at best irregular and not illegal, as it is not the case of the Respondents at any stage in the impugned order that the petitioners were not competent, eligible or fit for appointment. The Respondents have completely misdirected themselves in applying the ratio of paragraph 53 of the judgment of Uma Devi.
This Court on the basis of the aforesaid discussion is satisfied that the impugned order dated 27.5.2008 is not sustainable. It is, accordingly, set aside. The petitioners shall stand reinstated in service with all consequential benefits.
34
28. Thus, in view of the fact that the learned Single Judge himself in one of his last order dated 12.5.2009 in the aforesaid C.W.J.C.No. 11375/2008 which is subject matter of L.P.A. no. 809/2010 had considered the necessity of holding a further enquiry, this Court having taken into account the circulars on the subject of appointment of non-teaching post in the three phases of valid school would direct the Director Secondary School of the Human Resources Development Department to examine the individual cases of the respondent- writ petitioners of L.P.A. No. 1577/2009 and L.P.A. No. 185/2010 and if it is found that one or both of such respondent- writ petitioner, who had been appointed in the 1st phase of the project school, 1981-82, in consonance with the procedure mentioned therein on a sanctioned post either by the managing committee of the school or by the concerned District Education Officer he would direct for their reinstatement but there would be no question of payment of back wages. This exercise must be completed by the Director Secondary Education within a period of four months of the receipt/production of a copy of this order.
35
29. As with regard to appointment of non-
teaching employees second phase and third phase of the project school we would adopt the same recourse which was followed by a Full Bench Judgment of this Court in the case of Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh Vs. State & Ors. reported in 2000(1)PLJR 287, whereby and whereunder, number of writ petitions of the teaching staff of the similar project school were disposed of with a direction to the examine the claim of the petitioners for recognition/absorption of their services in the respective schools within a period of four months.
30. It is, however, made clear that each and every respondent writ petitioners and alike similarly situated persons appointed on Class-III & Class-IV posts in Project School of 2nd and 3rd phase would be reinstated within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order, if it is found :-
(i) Such appointment of the respondent writ petitioners was against a vacant sanctioned post in a project school
(ii) The respondent writ petitioners on the date of their appointment had possessed the requisite 36 qualification for such Class-III & Class-IV post.
(iii) Their order of appointment was made by either Regional Deputy Director of Education or the District Education Officer even without following the Circular of Personnel and Administrative Department in its two letters no. 16440 and 16441 dated 3.12.1980.
31. Upon completion of this exercise which must be completed positively within a period of four months of receipt/production of this order, the competent authority shall reinstate the concerned respondent writ petitioners who would fulfill all the aforesaid three conditions as indicated above. Though the respondent writ petitioners from their date of reinstatement in terms of the present order would be entitled for payment of salary but no payment of salary would be made for the period they have remained out of service. Such reinstated Respondent writ petitioner would however be given continuity in service only for the purposes of their post retirement benefits. In other words, they would not be entitled for any other financial benefits for the period they have remained 37 out of service save and except the continuity in service.
32. Such of the respondent writ petitioner, whose appointment was against unsanctioned posts and/or who did not possess the requisite qualification and/or whose appointment was neither made by the concerned Regional Deputy Director of Education nor by the District Education Officer, would not be entitled for reinstatement in service much less for payment of any back wages as directed by the learned single Judge.
33. The appeals are accordingly allowed in part and the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge would accordingly stand modified to the aforementioned extent.
34. There would be no order as to costs.
(Dipak Misra,C.J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Patna High Court The 6th April, 2010 N.A.F.R./Rishi.