Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Vijay Kumar Singh on 12 July, 2019
Author: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Bench: Chief Justice, Anjana Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.109 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2874 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Dy. Director Education, Saran Division, Chapra.
6. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.
8. The Headmaster Govt. Basic School, Chapra (Gudari), Saran at
Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Samir Kumar Son of Shri Hari Shankar Singh resident of Village
Amar Chapra, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1048 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3813 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Special Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education RDDE, Saran
Division, Chapra.
6. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.
8. The Headmaster, Govt. Basic School, Hansapir under the Circle
of Masarak District Saran at Chapra.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
2/49
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Anant Kumar Singh Son of Ram Bahori Singh Resident of Village
Mathiya, P.O. Kawalpura, P.S. - Masarak, District Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 946 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3718 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
6. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.
8. The Headmaster Govt. Basic School, Bangra, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Manshi Miyan Son of Late Isahak Miyan resident of village -
Narharpur, P.S. Marhaura, District - Saran at Chapra
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 943 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2898 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Dy. Director Education, Saran Division, Chapra.
6. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
3/49
7. The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.
8. The Headmaster Govt. of Basic School, Doila, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Baleshwar Prasad Singh Son of Late Bhrigunath Singh, Resident
of Village - Pursouli, P.S. - Isuapur, District - Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 950 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2808 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Dy. Director Education, Saran Division, Chapra.
6. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
7. The District Programme Officer, Siwan.
8. The Headmaster, Govt. Basic School, Agahra, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Vijay Kumar Singh, Son of Late Vishwanath Singh, resident of
village - Rampur Khoram, P.S. - Marhowrah, District - Saran at
Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 964 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10784 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Bihar, Patna
2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar , Patna.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
4/49
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Prem Kumar Shukla Son of Shri Sachchidanand Shukla, resident
of Village- Jitwarpur, Post- Badka, P.S.- Derni, District- Chapra
Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3850 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran at Chapra.
5. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
6. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Raj Narayan Rai Son of Late Ram Naresh Rai, Resident of
Village- Bariyar Chak, PO and PS- Nayagaon, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 962 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11953 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Dy, Director Education, Saran Division, Chapra.
6. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
5/49
7. The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.
8. The District Programme Officer, Siwan.
9. The Headmaster, Govt. Basic School, Mahmadpur, Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Punyakal Singh Son of Late Jamdar Singh, resident of Village-
Naini, P.S.- Chapra Muffasil, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 977 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4061 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of BIhar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran at Chapra.
5. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
6. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Education Officer Cum Enquiry Officer, Siwan.
8. The District Programme Officer (P & A) Cum Presenting Officer,
Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Arun Kumar Yadav, Son of Late Jagadish Prasad Yadav, R/o
Village-Tejpurwa P.O.-Musehari Via Khaira, P.S.-Chapra Muffasil,
District-Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 972 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12223 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
6/49
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra
5. The District Programme officer Establishment, Siwan - Cum -
Conducting Officer, District Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Rajendra Singh, Son of Late Gorakh Singh, Resident of village
and P.O. Chakra, P.S. Siwan Muffasil, District Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 976 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2487 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Dy. Director Education, Saran Division, Chapra,
6. The District Education Officer, Siwan
7. The District Programme Officer, Siwan
8. The Headmaster Govt. Basic School, Aghara, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ram Pukar Singh, Son of Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of Village-
Sharda Rai Ka Tola, P.S.-Marhowrah, District-Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
7/49
Letters Patent Appeal No. 978 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4320 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran at Chapra.
5. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
6. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Education Officer, Siwan
8. The District Programme Officer, P and A, Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Birendra Kumar Rai Son of Late Agni Deo Prasad Rai, Resident of
Village-Dumaria, P.O. Chanchaura, P.S. Chhapra, District-Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 975 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4004 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran at Chapra
5. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chhapra.
6. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Bacha Lal Sah, Son of Late Kedar Nath Sah, Resident of Village
and P.O.-Sadhpur Via Khodai Bagh, PO.S.-Garkha, District-Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
8/49
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 979 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3732 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Human Resources
Development of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of BIhar, Patna.
4. The Special Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Dy. Director Education, Saran Division, Chapra.
6. The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.
8. The Headmaster Govt. Basic School, Kerwan, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Raj Mohammad Ansari Son of Late Md. Reyajuddin Ansari
Resident of Village-Shahpur P.S. Gautam Budha Nagar, Tarwara
District Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 995 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1048 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division,
Patna.
5. The Regional Deputy Director Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
6. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Ara.
... ... Appellant/s
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
9/49
Versus
Sohaibun Khanam W/o- Masihuzzanan Khan, R/o at P.O.P.S.-
Jagdishpur, Mohalla- Purab, District- Bhojpur.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1049 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12542 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
5. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Siwan-cum-
Conducting Officer, District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Tribhuwan Pandey son of Late Dinanath Pandey, Resident of
Village- Pande Ji, P.O. Jaijore, P.S. Andar, District- Siwan,
Assistant Teacher, Government Basic School, Jaijore, District-
Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 947 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13978 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director, Primary, Education Government of Bihar,
Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
10/49
5. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
6. The District Superintendent of Education-cum- Inquiry Officer,
Saran at Chapra.
7. The Sub Divisional Education Officer, Saran South-cum-
Conducting Officer, Saran at Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Nirmala Singh, daughter of Late Janardan Singh, resident of
Village- Kothian, P.S.- Jalalpur, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 956 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1622 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human
Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar at
Patna
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar at Patna.
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division at
Chapra, District Saran.
4. The District Education officer, Gopalganj, District Gopalganj.
5. The District Education officer, Siwan, District - Siwan.
6. The District Education officer, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Programme officer Establishment, Gopalganj,
District - Gopalganj.
8. The District Programme officer Accounts and Planning , Siwan,
District - Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Alamddin Mia S/o Sri Vokil Mian Resident of village - Amlori,
P.O. Amlori, P.S. District Siwan, Previously Posted and Working
as an Assistant Teacher in Govt. Basic School, Jigna, District -
Gopalganj.
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
11/49
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 970 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18888 of 2015
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Education, Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
5. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra, District-Saran at
Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Shah Shobha Kumari Wife of Sri Nageshwar Shah, Presently
Working as an Assistant Teacher in Government Basic School,
Haranbadha, District- Saran at Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 942 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3230 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Dy. Director Education, Saran Division, Chapra.
6. The District Education officer, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Programme officer, Saran at Chapra.
8. The Headmaster Govt. Basic School, Bansohi, Saran at Chapra.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
12/49
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ashok Kumar Singh Son of Shri Chandraket Narayan Singh
resident of village - Lauwa, P.S. Ishuapur, District - Saran at
Chapra
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 965 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11035 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
5. The District Education Officer, Saran.
6. The District Programme Officer Establishment, District- Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Ajay Kumar Singh S/o Sri Raghav Prasad Singh, resident of
VillageP.O.- Mirzapur, P.S.- Awatarnagar, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 966 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19653 of 2015
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of
Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
13/49
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
5. The District Education Officer, Siwan, District- Siwan.
6. The District Programme Officer Accounts and Planning, Siwan,
District- Siwan.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Vijay Kumar Raman Son of Late Rameshwar Singh, Resident of
Village and P.O.- Narendrapur, P.S.- Jiradei, District- Siwan.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 994 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19509 of 2015
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna
3. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Patna Division,
Patna
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Abhimanyu Prasad Singh s/o Late Karo Singh, Resident of village-
Dhurgaon Ward No. 4, P.S. Ekangarsarai, Nalanda at Biharsharif
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 944 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11069 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government
of Bihar, Patna.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
14/49
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division,
Chapra.
5. The District Education Officer, Saran.
6. The District Programme Officer Establishment, District- Saran.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Kanhaiya Jee Shukla Son of Sri Bhrigu Nath Shukla, Resident of
Village P.O.- Mastichak, P.S.- Dariyapur, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 948 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3860 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran at Chhapra.
5. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chhapra.
6. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Saran at Chhapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Yunarvi Rai, Son of Ram Gati Rai, Resident of Village-
Banwaripur, P.O.- Mastichak, Ps- Dariyapur, District- Saran.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 971 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2800 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
15/49
2. The Principal Secretary Department of Human Resources
Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Special Director Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
5. The Regional Dy. Director Education, Saran Division, Chapra.
6. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chapra.
7. The District Programme Officer, Saran at Chapra.
8. The Headmaster Govt. Basic School, Mahmmadpur, Saran at
Chapra.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Dinesh Kumar Singh Son of Shri Ram Naresh Singh, Resident of
Village - Sharda Rai Ka Tola, P.S. - Marhaura, District - Saran at
Chapra.
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 945 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3921 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran at Chhapra
5. The District Education officer, Saran at Chapra
6. The District Programme officer Eastablishment , Saran at
Chhapra
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Harendra Prasad Singh Son of Sri Laxman Singh Resident of
village - Dharmchak, P.O. Mastichak, P.S. Dariyapur, District -
Saran
... ... Respondent/s
===============================================
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
16/49
with
Letters Patent Appeal No. 949 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3908 of 2016
===============================================
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Education, Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran at Chapra
5. The District Education Officer, Saran at Chhapra
6. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Saran at Chhapra.
7. The District Education Officer, Siwan
8. The District Programme Officer P and A, Siwan
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
Pradeep Kumar Yadav Son of Late Muneshwar Rawat Resident of
Village and P.O.- Laheji, P.S.- M.H. Nagar, District- Siwan
... ... Respondent/s
Appearance :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 109 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Vivek Prasad, G.P.-7
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Nagadeo Choubey, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1048 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Jeetendra Narayan, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 946 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 943 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Prabhat Ranjan Singh, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 950 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 964 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Amaresh Kumar Sinha, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 967 of 2018)
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
17/49
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Vinay Kumar Mishra Ac To Aag 15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocater
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 962 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
Mr.Amarendra Kumar, AC to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam,
Advocate
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kislay Raj, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 977 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 972 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
Mr.Amarendra Kumar, AC to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kislay Raj, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 976 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 978 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Mukesh Kumar
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 975 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 979 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 995 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Rakesh Narayan Singh, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:Mr.Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1049 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
Mr.Amarendra Kumar, AC to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kislay Raj, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 947 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
18/49
Mr.Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, AC to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 956 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 970 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
Mr.Amarendra Kumar, AC to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kislay Raj, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 942 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Shashi Shekhar Tiwary,A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s :
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 965 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr.Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 966 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
Mr.Amarendra Kumar, AC to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s:Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam, Adv.
Mr. Ravi Ranjan, Advocate
Mr. Awnish Kumar, Advocate
Mr. Kislay Raj, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 994 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Rakesh Narayan Singh, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 944 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Chandra Shekhar Singh, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 948 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Rakesh Narayan Singh, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 971 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr.Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr. Ram Binod Singh, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 945 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s :Mr. Shashi Shekhar Tiwary, A.C. to AAG-15
For the Respondent/s: Mr.Mukesh Kumar, Advocate
(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 949 of 2018)
For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, AAG-15
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019
19/49
For the Respondent/s:
Dr. K.N. Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate
===============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA
MISHRA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date : 12-07-2019
We have heard learned counsel for the State of
Bihar-appellant supported by argument of Sri M.N. Parbat,
learned senior counsel for the intervenor-Gayatri Kumari @
Gayatri Devi. For the respondent-petitioners, we have heard Sri
Bindhyachal Singh, Sri Tej Bahadur Singh, Sri P.K. Shahi, Sri
S.K. Dwivedi, Sri K.N. Singh, learned senior counsel, Sri
S.B.K. Mangalam and Sri Jeetendra Narayan, learned counsel.
02. These appeals have been filed by the State of
Bihar assailing the impugned judgment dated 13.04.2017,
whereby the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petitions
filed by the 28 respondent-petitioners in all the appeals setting
aside their termination orders on the post of Teachers of
Government run Middle Schools in the district of Siwan. The
respondent-petitioners were applicants for appointment as
Teachers against an advertisement that was published on
09.08.1988pursuant whereto selections were held between Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 20/49 1989-90 and appointments were made in the year 1991. The selections, therefore, relate to an almost three decade old matter, the dispute whereof came to be raised in the year 2001 when certain non-selected teachers staked their claim before this Court.
03. There is no dispute between the parties that the selections and appointments were to be made in accordance with the State Basic Schools (Classification, Appointment, Promotion and Transfer of Assistant Teachers) Rules, 1975 which are extracted hereinunder:-
रराजककीय बबुननियरादद नविदरालयय कक सहरायक नशिक्षकय ककी सकविरा मम ससंविरर्गीकरण ननियबुनक, ÁksUufr एविसं स्थरान्तरण ननियमराविलद, 1975 नबहरार सरकरार, नशिक्षरा नविभरार, अधधिससूचनिरा ससंख्यरा एस. ओ.
2749, नदनिरासंक 11.11.1975 - भरारतदय ससंनविधिरानि कक अनिबुच्छक द 309 कक परसंतबुक दराररा प्रदत शिनकयय करा प्रययोर करतक हह ए नबहरार रराजयपराल ननिदकशिक (नविदरालयद परदक्षरा) कक अधिदनिस्थ रराजककीय बबुननियरादद नविदरालयय कक नशिक्षकय ककी सकविरा ससंविरर , ननियबुनक, प्रयोनिनत, स्थरान्तरण एविसं अन्य सकविरा शितर सं कयो ननियनमत करनिक कक धलए fuEukafdr fu;ekoyh cukrs gSa %& Hkkx 1 सरामरान्य 1- laf{kIr uke] izkjaHk ,ao foLrkj-- (1) ;g fu;ekoyh रराजककीय बबुननियरादद नविदरालयय कक सहरायक नशिक्षकय ककी सकविरा कक ससंविरर्गीकरण ननियबुनक, प्रयोनिनत एविसं स्थरान्तरण ननियमराविलद, 1975 dgyk,xhA Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 21/49 (2) यह ननियमराविलद अधधिससूचनिरा कक ननिरर त हयोनिक ककी नतधथ सक लरारसू हयोरद A (3)यह ननियमराविलद ननिदकशिक (नविधिरालय नशिक्षरा), नबहरार कक प्रशिरासननिक ननियसंत्रण कक अधिदनि रराजककीय बबुननियरादद नविधिरालयय कक सभद सहरायक नशिक्षकय पर लरारसू हयोरदA 2- (1) रराज्य सरकरार आविशियकतरानिबुसरार इनि ननियमय मम ससंशियोधिनि, रूपरान्तर और पररवितर नि तथरा iquxZfBr djus ds vf/kdkj dks ससंविरर कयो jf{kr j[krh gSA (2) jkT; esa jktdh; cqfu;knh fo/kky;ksa ds lgk;d f"k{kdksa dh HkrhZ dh jhfr vkSj mudh lsok lacaf/kr ekeyksa ij foHkkxk/;{k dk vkns"k vafre gksxkA (3½;g fu;ekoyh blds izkjaHk ls iwoZ ykxw fdlh Hkh le; ds vkns"k dk og¡k rd voØe.k djsxh] tgk¡ rd og blds }kjk izdkf"kr fu;ekoyh ds izko/kkuksa ds izfrdwy gksA 3- ifjHkk"kk,¡ & tc rd dksbZ ckr] fo'k; ;k izlax ds fo'k; ds fo:} u gks] bl fu;ekoyh esa%& ¼d½ ^jkT; ljdkj^ ls rkRi;Z fcgkj ljdkjA ¼[k½ ^o'kZ^ ls rkRi;Z iapkax o'kZA ¼x½ ^laoxZ^ ls rkRi;Z bl fu;ekoyh ds vUrxZr jkT; ds iquxZfBr izeaMyksa vkSj ftyksa ds jktdh; cqfu;knh नविदरालययोsa ds lgk;d f"k{kdksa ds laoxZ ls gSA ¼Ä½ ^fu;a=.k inkf/kdkjh^ ls rkRi;Z] izeaMyh; {ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd ls gSA ¼M-½ ^foHkkxk?;{k^ ls rkRi;Z] funs"kd ¼fo|kyh; f"k{kk½ ls gSA Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 22/49 ¼p½ ^l{ke inkf/kdkjh^ ls rkRi;Z ,sls inkf/kdkjh ls gS ftUgsa jkT; ljdkj }kjk f"k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr ,oa LFkkukUrj.k vkfn dh "kfDr;k¡ iznku dh x;h gSA ¼N½ ^izeaMyh; laoxZ ds f"k{kd^ ls rkRi;Z ,sls f"k{kd ls gS ftudh izFke fu;qfDr ml izeaMyh; laoxZ ls dh x;h Fkh vkSj vkxs Hkh mlesa gksxhA Hkkx 2 laoxZ xBu 4-¼1½ jkT; ds jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d f"k{kdksa ds inksa dks fuEufyf[kr lkr laoxksZa esa iquxZfBr fd;k tkrk gS%& 1- izeaMyh; laoxZ& iVuk izeaMy] iVukA 2- izeaMyh; laoxZ& frjgqr izeaMy] eqt¶QjiqjA 3- izeaMyh; laoxZ& Hkkxyiqj izeaMy] HkkxyiqjA 4- izeaMyh; laoxZ&mrjh NksVkukxiqj izeaMy] gtkjhckxA 5- izeaMyh; laoxZ&nf{k.kh NksVkukxiqj izeaMy] jk¡phA 6- izeaMyh; laoxZ&njHkaxk izeaMy] njHkaxkA 7- izeaMyh; laoxZ&dks"kh izeaMy] lgjlkA ¼2½ mi;qZDr laoxksZa ds fu;a=d inkf/kdkjh v/kksfyf[kr gksax%s & 1- izeaMyh; laoxZ] iVuk izeaMy& {ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd] iVuk izeaMyA 2- izeaMyh; laoxZ]frjgqr izeaMy& {ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd] frjgqr izeaMy eqt¶QjiqjA 3- izeaMyh; laoxZ] Hkkxyiqj Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 23/49 izeaMy&{ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd]Hkkxyiqj izeaMy] HkkxyiqjA 4- izeaMyh; laoxZ] mrjh NksVkukxiqj izeaMy& {ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd] mrjh NksVkukxiqj izeaMy gtkjhckxA 5- izeaMyh; laoxZ] nf{k.kh NksVkukxiqj izeaMy&{ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd] nf{k.kh NksVkukxiqj izeaMy jk¡phA 6- izeaMyh; laoxZ]njHkaxk izeaMy& {ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd]njHkaxk izeaMy] njHkaxk A 7- izeaMyh; laoxZ] dks"kh izeaMy& {ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd] dks"kh izeaMy] lgjlkA Hkkx 3 fu;qfDr ,oa izkséfr 5¼1½ jktdh; cqfu;knh fo|ky;ksa ds lgk;d f"k{kdksa ds laoxZ esa lh/kh fu;qfDr dsoy eSfVªd izf"kf{kr ds inksa ij gh gksxhA ¼2½ vkbZ0 ,0 izf"kf{kr ds in eSfVªd izf"kf{kr osrueku ds lgk;d f"k{kdksa ls ojh;rk ,oa n{krk ds vk/kkj ij vkbZ0 ,0 izf"kf{kr ,oa Åij dh ;ksX;rk ds f"k{kdksa esa ls izkséfr }kjk Hkjs tk;saxsA izoj dksfV ds in Hkh osrueku fo"ks"k ds lgk;d f"k{kdksa dh ojh;rk ,ao n{krk ds vk/kkj ij izkséfr }kjk Hkjs tk;saxs ¼3½ izR;sd laoxZ esa lgk;d नशिक्षकय dh fu;qfDr ,oa izkséfr fuEufyf[kr lnL;ksa dks feykdj xfBr dh x;h lfefr dh अनिबुशिसंसरा ij dh tk;sxh%& ¼d½ {ks=h; f"k{kksifuns"kd v?;{k ¼[k½ izeaMy ds rhu ojh;re ftyk f"k{kk inkf/kdkjh lnL;
¼x½ izeaMy ds rhu ojh;re ftyk f"k{kk v/kh{kd lnL;
¼4½ lHkh fu;qfDr;k¡ ,ao izkséfr;k¡ izeaMyh; lfefr dh vuq"kalk ij gksxhA ¼5½ LFkk;h vkSj vLFkk;h inksa ij fu;qfDr Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 24/49 izeaMyh; lfefr }kjk rS;kj dh x;h lwph ds vk/kkj ij l{ke izkf/kdkjh djsaxsA izeaMyh; lfefr le;≤ ij jkT;
ljdkj }kjk fofgr अनिबुदकशिय vkSj ekud ds vuqlkj lwph rS;kj djsXkhA ¼6½ izR;sd f"k{kd dh ijh{;eku :Ik ls nks o'kksZa ds fy, fu;qfDr dh tk;sXkhA lh/kh fu;qfDr ds fy, rS;kj fd;s x, mEehnokj dh lwph p;u lfefr }kjk ifj;kstuk ds vuqeksnu dh frfFk ls ,d o'kZ ds fy, fof/kekU; gksxhA Hkkx 4 ojh;rk 6¼1½ gky esa HkrhZ fd;ss x;s ;ksX; eSfVªd izf"kf{kr f"k{kdksa dh ojh;rk ;ksX;rk&Øe ls rS;kj dh x;h lwph ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA ¼2½ fu;qDr f"k{kdksa dh ojh;rk muds dk;ZHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA ;fn ,d gh frfFk dks dksbZ f"k{kd inHkkj xzg.k djsaxs rks mudh ojh;rk lwph mudh "kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk ds vk/kkj ij gksxhA vxj "kSf{kf.k ;ksX;rk Hkh ,d gks rks ojh;rk mudh mez ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr gksXkhA ¼3½ ;fn ,d gh lkFk lh/kh HkrhZ vkSj izkséfr }kjk vkbZ0 ,0 izf"kf{kr O;fDr;ksa dh fu;qfDr gks rks izksér o;fDr lh/kh HkrhZ }kjk fu;qDr gksus okys O;fDr ls ojh; gksaxsA ¼4½ izoj dksfV esa ojh;rk ml dksfV esa f"k{kdksa dh ojh;rk ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA ¼5½ tks f"k{kd vius vuqjks/k ij nwljs laoxZ esa inLFkkfir gksuk pkgsaxs mudh ojh;rk ml laoxZ esa inHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA Hkkx 5 LFkkukUrj.k 7-¼1½ f"k{kdksa dk LFkkukUrj.k vius laoxZ esa gh gksXkkA ,d laoxZ ls nwljs laoxZ esa fdlh Hkh lgk;d f"k{kd dk lk/kkj.kr% LFkkukUrj.k ugha gksxkA Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 25/49 ¼2½ ;fn dksbZ f"k{kd vius vuqjks/k ij nwljs laoxZ esa inLFkkfir gksuk pkgsaxs rks mUgsa mDr laoxZ esa LFkku fjDr jgus ij gh inLFkkfir fd;k tk ldsxk vkSj oSlh n"kk esa ojh;rk mls laoxZ esa inHkkj xzg.k djus dh frfFk ls gh fu/kkZfjr gksxhA laoxZ ifjorZu dk ;g vkns"k vafre vkSj vifjorZuh; gksxkA ¼3½ eSfVªd izf"kf{kr osrueku esa f"k{kdksa dk LFkkukUrj.k lk/kkj.kr% vius x`g ftyk ;k izFke fu;qfDr ds ftys ds Hkhrj fd;k tk;sxk vkSj fo"ks'k ifjfLFkfr esa vius x`g ftyk ;k izFke fu;qfDr ds ftys ds vfrfjDr nwljs ftys esa Hkh mudk inLFkkiu fd;k tk ldsxkA ¼4½ ,sls f"k{kd tks fu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ esa fd;s x;s LFkkukUrj.k ds ifj.kkeLo:Ik nwljs laoxZ esa inLFkkfir gSa mudh lsok;sa orZeku laoxZ esa gLrkurfjr ekuh tk;sxh vkSj LFkku fjDr gksrs gh os vius ewy laoxZ esa LFkkukUrfjr dj fn;s tk;saxsA
04. Clause 5 of the said Rules provides for the preparation of a panel on the basis of merit according to which selections are to be made. There does not appear to be any further provision as to the manner in which the panel shall be displayed or made known to the candidates. The appointments have to be offered on the basis of the said panel to the selected candidates.
05. Two writ petitions were filed CWJC No. 8942 of 2001 (Sri Bhagwan Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and CWJC No. 10212 of 2001 (Kashinath Singh vs. The State of Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 26/49 Bihar & Ors.) wherein allegations had been made of irregularities and manipulation in the selections and appointments presently involved. A learned Single Judge on 24.08.2011 passed the following order for conducting a vigilance inquiry:-
"In a nutshell, dispute is with regard to alleged large scale illegalities committed in the appointment of teachers of basic schools in the Division of Saran in 1991 onwards.
The allegation of the petitioners is that out of 108 persons, who were appointed, names of many of them were not in the panel or within the cut-off marks and they were appointed by committing forgery and manipulation in the panel. The grievance of the petitioners is that persons from below the panel and below the cut-off marks were also appointed ignoring claims of petitioners.
In the circumstances, this Court earlier directed the respondents to hold an enquiry and identify persons, who were illegally appointed, and take appropriate action in the matter. The State Government 2 has initiated some enquiry due to which appointment of interveners has come under cloud.
Now the interveners claim that if a thorough enquiry is held in respect of persons, who were appointed earlier showing them above Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 27/49 in the panel, it will be found that many of them were not eligible at all for appointment although surreptitiously they were included in the panel and were appointed.
The broad outline of the case has been noticed only for the purpose that this Court feels that a thorough enquiry is required in the matter by a competent authority.
In the circumstances, this Court feels it appropriate that the matter should be got enquired into by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department through a senior officer not below the rank of Dy. Superintendent of Police. As such, Additional Director General of Vigilance as well as Principal Secretary of the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department are directed to take steps for a thorough enquiry in the matter. 3 This Court directs that enquiry should be held by the Department and a preliminary report should be submitted to this Court to be placed in these cases within four months from today.
Leaned counsel for the petitioners submits that he has served two sets of entire brief upon learned counsel for the Vigilance Department, receipt of which is being filed in Court by learned counsel for the petitioners. Let it be kept on record. If any party is in possession of some relevant documents which may be useful for enquiry, the Enquiry Officer shall accept it for consideration.
Put up after four
months."
Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 28/49
06. It appears that a third writ petition of the same nature was filed vide CWJC No. 20639 of 2010 (Rajendra Kumar Singh vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).
07. The said writ petitions came to be heard and disposed of on 25.07.2012 by the following judgment:-
"Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) of Siwan Zone is present in Court and a final report along with its enclosures has been submitted by learned senior counsel appearing on his behalf which is kept on record.
Now, after specific orders and indulgence granted by this Court, Vigilance Department has completed the investigation and submitted its final report along with its enclosures. It has recommended for institution of the first information report against persons guilty for illegal appointments. Along with recommendation for institution of F.I.R. a large number of documents have been annexed including a comparative chart of marks of the candidates appointed.
Learned senior counsel for the Vigilance submits that among the appointed candidates, many have been found to be illegally appointed which has been pointed out by the Vigilance. Vigilance Department has also found that there was large scale connivance of the officials of the Department in the said appointments. Hence, Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 29/49 prosecution has been recommended against them.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that now Vigilance Department has found that from the panel of 150 candidates, many candidates, out of 115 appointed, have now been found by the Vigilance as illegally appointed. Hence the Department should revise the panel, strike off names of such candidates from panel and remove them from services. As a consequence of revision of the panel, now many candidates who ranked above or below the 150, like petitioners, may get higher position in the panel and within the cut-off point fixed for appointment. Hence if such candidates come under the consideration zone, they should be appointed and/or be allowed to continue.
Learned Government Advocate No.1 submits that it is not clear from the report of the Vigilance Department as to whether a copy of the same has been sent to the Department of Primary Education or not. Besides, fixing criminal liability on the officials involved in large scale illegal appointments, departmental action is also required to be taken against them as well as against illegally appointed teachers. Hence, the Department will require a copy of the report along with its enclosures to decide future course of action in the matter.
In the circumstances, Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 30/49 of Siwan Zone is directed to send a copy of the final report with all its enclosures to Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, positively within a fortnight from today. On receipt of the report, the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna shall take up the matter himself personally, examine the report and shall decide future course of action as the Department may be required to take in the matter particularly in respect of the officials of the Department as well as teachers who got employment on account of this illegal appointment. He will also revise the panel and check up as to how many other candidates ranking below, like the petitioners are shifted to higher position in the panel, so that on the basis of the record and other records of the Department, their entitlement for appointment or being retained may be considered. Since the matter is old one, Principal Secretary shall see to it that actions are taken in the matter as quickly as possible.
The writ applications are disposed of with the aforesaid observations and directions."
08. According to the directions contained in the above-quoted order the Principal Secretary of the Department concerned was to take notice of the report of the vigilance bearing Report No. BS 13/2011, a copy whereof has been filed Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 31/49 as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent no. 5 in the writ petition and appears to have been dispatched in 2012 itself.
09. The Principal Secretary of the Department concerned constituted a Three Member Committee to look into the findings of the vigilance report and to proceed in accordance with law. The Three Member Committee submitted a report dated 21.02.2014 which ultimately came to it's own findings in tune with the vigilance report that the respondent-
petitioners had succeeded in getting themselves selected from amongst the panel of the teachers on the strength of inflated marks that were depicted against their candidature for which different methods were adopted, thereby pushing down the meritorious candidates who were eliminated and in their place the respondent-petitioners who had lesser marks got themselves selected.
10. On the strength of the said reports that was accepted, disciplinary proceedings were initiated by issuing show-cause notices and calling for a reply from the petitioners and thereafter an inquiry was held. Upon the submission of the Inquiry Report, a second show-cause notice was issued to the respondent-petitioners, whereafter their services were Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 32/49 terminated.
11. The appellant-State and its authorities came to the conclusion that on account of the inflation of marks candidates who were better in merit were eliminated and the respondent-petitioners with the aid of wrong marks being reflected against their names succeeded in getting themselves appointed. It was also found that had this manipulation not been carried out in the reflection of marks of the respondent-
petitioners, they would have not been placed amongst the 150 candidates who were selected and appointed.
12. We may mention here that a panel of 903 candidates had been prepared, but appointments had to be made only against 150 available posts. Thus, the merit as against150 posts had to be prepared and appointments were to be made accordingly.
13. Learned counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar contends that the fact that incorrect marks were reflected is admitted to the respondent-petitioners and, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the inquiring agency is correct. Since there was no other conclusion possible, the Disciplinary Authority rightly formed the opinion that the services of the respondent-petitioners deserve to be terminated. Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 33/49
14. The termination orders came to be challenged in the writ petitions giving rise to these appeals on the ground that the impugned orders are in violation of principles of natural justice, inasmuch as, copies of the documents including the Inquiry Report were not supplied to the respondent-petitioners so as to give them a fair opportunity to defend themselves. It was, therefore, held by the learned Single Judge that since the procedure meant for departmental proceedings including Rule 17 and 18 of the Bihar CCA Rules was not followed, hence the Inquiry was vitiated. It is also evident that the learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that no reasons have been given as to why the objections raised by the respondent-petitioners about non-supply of documents was not tenable. The learned Single Judge found several procedural flaws in the inquiry and also held that there was no supporting evidence so as to attribute any fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondent-petitioners and consequently, all the termination orders were invalidated by observing as under:-
"Summarizing the matter in contest, in my opinion the proceedings held in the case of the petitioners in this batch of writ petitions suffers from a number of procedural infirmities, which are dehors the provisions underlying 'the Disciplinary Rules' and Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 34/49 against the principles of natural justice. Apart from the statutory violations the orders impugned in this batch of writ petitions is also not sustainable on grounds of absence of reasons accompanying termination as well as the failure on the part of the Regional Deputy Director of Education to take notice of the enquiry report as well as the defence set up by each of the petitioners. The Regional Deputy Director of Education has failed to apply his mind as to whether the irregularity complained of, is of such nature which would render the very appointment void from its inception or the irregularity so pointed out is of a condonable nature.
In my opinion, all these writ petitions are fit to be allowed for the following reasons:
(i) The Vigilance report which is the foundation for the exercise should have been individually examined and not applied blindly.
(ii) The order of the Principal Secretary, Education Department, as contained in his letter dated 19.12.2014 addressed to the Regional Deputy Director of Education when it directs him to initiate action for termination of the services of the teachers by following the procedure provided under 'the Disciplinary Rules', leaves no discretion at the hands of the Regional Deputy Director of Education to examine the merits of the claim. The direction is in the teeth of the judicial pronouncement of the Supreme Court rendered in Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 35/49 the case of Purtappur Sugar Comp. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar & ors., since reported in AIR 1970 SC 1896.
(iii) The order of termination impugned in the writ petitions is in violation of the procedure underlying Rules 17 and
18 of 'the Disciplinary Rules' which, inter alia, casts certain obligation on the disciplinary authority which are mandatorily required to be followed after receipt of an enquiry report and before imposing a major penalty.
The Regional Deputy Director of Education has failed to follow the procedure provided under 'the Disciplinary Rules'. The orders passed are thus in utter disregard of the lawful procedure.
(iv) The orders are unsustainable because even when in most of the cases the enquiry report is in favour of the petitioners, yet no disagreement note has been issued by the disciplinary authority i.e. the Regional Deputy Director of Education which invalidates the termination order. In few of the cases even the copy of the enquiry report has not been supplied as already indicated above and despite attention being drawn of the Regional Deputy Director of Education, he has not bothered to correct the mistake.
(v) All these petitioners are working since 1991 when the selection was carried out and there was no challenge to their Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 36/49 appointment by any of the contesting applicants except two namely Bhagwan Singh and Kashinath Singh and whose claim for appointment has not been upheld by this Court. The report of the vigilance in so far as these petitioners are concerned, prima facie does not reflect any invalidity in their appointment.
(vi) There is no evidence on record to confront the stand of the petitioners that they had no role in preparation of the panel.
(vii) The order of termination impugned in this batch of writ petitions neither discusses the defence set up by the respective petitioners, the explanation given by them nor discusses the evidence allegedly connecting these petitioners to the charge. In other words, the order of termination is without reasons, rather is passed in mechanical obedience of the directions of the Principal Secretary.
(viii) It is rather unfortunate that even though the Supreme Court has been repeatedly reminding the executive authorities of their duty to assign reasons while adjudicating on inter-party rights but the wisdom does not reflect in the actions that follow. Reference in this regard is made to the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kranti Associates Private Limited & anor. v. Masood Ahmed Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 37/49 Khan & ors., since reported in (2010)9 SCC 496, wherein the Supreme Court while discussing on the obligation of an authority discharging quasi judicial functions in paragraphs 14 to 46 has summarized the position in paragraph 47, which reads as follows:
"47. Summarizing the above discussion, this Court holds:
(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.
(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.
(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.
(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-
judicial or even administrative power.
(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision- maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous consideration.
(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 38/49 a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi- judicial and even by administrative bodies.
(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.
(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.
(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them.
All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.
(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.
(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 39/49 principles of incrementalism.
(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-
making process.
(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the since qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny.
(See: David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Condor, 32(1987)100 Harvard Law Review 731-37)
(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strashourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v.
Spain EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford, wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which required, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decision".
(o) In all common law jurisdiction judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 40/49 essence and is virtually a part of "due process"."
(ix) The report of the three-Member Committee dated 24.2.2014 constituted by the Director, Primary Education under the orders of this Court is on record at Annexure 9 to C.W.J.C.No. 11069/2016 and the three-Member Committee which includes the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Saran Division, Chapra acknowledges the fact that the issue raised dates back more than two decades and neither the application of any applicant is available nor the educational certificates of the candidates is available, rather the Vigilance has enquired into the matter on the basis of certificates produced by the teachers themselves. The only irregularity which has been mentioned by the three-Member Committee is that the preparation of the merit list suffered from several irregularities.
(x) Considering that these petitioners have continued on their respective post for more than 35 years with nothing substantive on record to render their appointment void, any irregularity pointed out by the vigilance bordering on inter party merit, required an examination by the authority concerned with a pragmatic approach Patna High Court CWJC No.2874 of 2016 60 and not in the mechanical and arbitrary manner as reflecting from the proceedings Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 41/49 accompanying the present batch of cases.
(xi) The orders are simply resting on the allegations as found in the vigilance report or in the charge memo issued without any supporting evidence. In other words, except for the allegation there is no supporting evidence to support the charge and thus, the conclusion is based on no evidence."
15. Learned counsel for the appellant-State of Bihar contends that when the primary fact relating to an erroneous description of marks has been established, then the observation made by the learned Single Judge that the primary case was one of inter se merit is not correct. This was a case where the respondent-petitioners had entered into service on the basis of a manipulated merit chart with the aid of which they achieved their ends. This, therefore, is a case of fraud and misrepresentation and not a case of mistake which could have been regularised or can be corrected even now. It is in this background that the State of Bihar contends that the learned Single Judge has committed an error in allowing the writ petitions that too even without remanding the matter back for filling up the gaps in the inquiry proceedings.
16. Replying to the aforesaid submissions all the Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 42/49 learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners have virtually adopted the same line of arguments contending that the appellant-State had not followed the procedure prescribed in law and there was no material to support the conclusion so as to form any adverse opinion against the respondent-petitioners on the basis of material found. Thus, since there was no evidence to establish the involvement of the respondent-petitioners, the learned Single Judge was justified in quashing the termination orders. It is also submitted on behalf of the respondent-
petitioners that almost 30 years have passed by and some of the teachers are now about to complete their career, in such circumstances, this Court should not interfere with the orders of the learned Single Judge and they should be allowed to continue in the service. It is their contention that the proceedings were not in accordance with the directions contained in the judgment dated 25.07.2012. Learned counsel for the respondent-petitioners have relied on Rule 17 (23)(ii) and Rule 18(2) of the CCA Rule, 2005 to contend that no reason for disagreement with the findings arrived at by the Vigilance Department and the Three Member Committee has been recorded. To support the submission, reliance has been placed on Paragraphs 10, 13 and 14 of the judgment in the case Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 43/49 of Lav Nigam vs. Chairman & MD, ITI Ltd. and Anr.
reported in (2006) 9 SCC 440. The non-supply of relevant documents and also the inquiry report has also been asserted for which reliance is placed on the judgments in the case of State Bank of India and Ors. vs. D.C. Aggarwal and Anr. reported in (1993) 1 SCC 13, Syed Rahimuddin vs. Director General, CSIR and Ors. reported in (2001) 9 SCC 575 Paragraph 3 and Govt. of A.P. And Ors. vs. A. Venkata Raidu reported in (2007) 1 SCC 338 Paragraph 9. It has also been urged that the orders reflect non-application of mind which violates to Rule 18(4) of the CCA Rules, 2005 and in support thereof the case of Chandradip Sinha vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2000 (3) PLJR 64 has been cited.
17. We have considered the submissions raised and we find that this dispute arose on account of a direction issued by the High Court on 24.08. 2011 and the judgment dated 25.07.2012. The said orders have become final and have not been challenged by anybody. Thus, any passage of time after the appointment of the respondent-petitioners cannot be a ground to construe that the exercise undertaken was belated or cannot be scrutinized due to a long lapse of time. Apart from this, two inquiries were held, one by the Vigilance Department Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 44/49 and the other by the Three Member Inquiry Committee where the respondent-petitioners did submit their reply.
18. One thing is certain that the respondent-
petitioners have also not been able to successfully deny the fact that their marks were wrongly depicted in the panel prepared by the office. The stand of the respondent-petitioners is that such mistake was either a clerical or a typographical or a mistake which was only attributable to the office of the employers and which nowhere reflects any manipulation or fraud on the part of the respondent-petitioners.
19. The Inquiry Reports reflect the manipulation of marks only in the panel-list and there is no evidence of the respondent-petitioners having furnished fake mark-sheets or any wrong information about their actual marks but the fact remains that all the respondent-petitioners are beneficiaries of the said manipulated transaction.
20. It is here that we would like to comment upon the nature of the mistakes that have been reflected in the inquiry reports. A mistake is an error or a wrong estimate or fault in thought or inaction on account of any misunderstanding or misconception. What would amount to an inadvertent mistake is another aspect. A typographical mistake can be inadvertent Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 45/49 and this what the respondent-petitioners assert but the manner in which the marks have been varied in the panel-list are in great contrast to the actual marks of the respondent-petitioners.
The mistakes are therefore not inadvertent or typographical.
They are calculative mistakes that have been inserted with a view to alter the position of merit and are not typing mistakes.
The mistakes in the panel are evident as the respondent-
petitioners themselves have taken a stand that they are not responsible for the mistakes as reflected in the panel-list. The respondent-petitioners have tried to shift the entire burden on the officials who may have prepared the panel-list and on whom the allegation is of having committed that mistake. The respondent-petitioners therefore have attempted to absolve themselves of any act of guilt on their part.
21. We find that the respondent-petitioners are the beneficiaries feigning ignorance about the depiction of such marks in the panel-list. They all contend that they have no knowledge as to how and when such mistakes occurred and they were not even brought to the notice of respondent-
petitioners at any stage. It is therefore submitted on their behalf that if there was no knowledge to the respondent-petitioners about the said alleged mistakes then in that event no guilt can Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 46/49 be attributed to them.
22. The question can be answered on the basis of the surrounding circumstances where the respondent-petitioners are beneficiaries. The respondent-petitioners had knowledge about their selection and, therefore, an inference can be reasonably drawn and gathered from surrounding circumstances that the respondent-petitioners were at least having constructive knowledge of the selections on the basis of a panel that upon inquiry has been established to have been wrongly drawn up.
To contend that they had no knowledge about the reflection of wrong marks would amount to infer a conduct against the ordinary course of things. However, inference on the basis of such evidence must be carefully distinguished from conjectures or mere speculation. An inference should not be drawn on the basis of strenuous exercise in order to prove something which otherwise may not exist but the objective facts of this case particularly the wrong reflection of marks is a strong circumstance which does not appear to be disputed by the respondent-petitioners. To the contrary, the respondent-
petitioners are confident of even getting selected if the marks are correctly revised and placed in the panel.
23. The argument of the respondent-petitioners is Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 47/49 that if the entire merit list is re-looked into as directed in the judgment dated 25.07.2012 it is quite possible that even with the correct marks the respondent-petitioners would succeed in getting selected. This exercise according to them has not been undertaken and which we find is not in accordance with the directions issued by this Court or the rules of inquiry. The procedure appears to have been violated, inasmuch as, the respondent-petitioners were admittedly not given a complete copy of the Inquiry Report and the second show-cause notice only mentioned a gist of the charges that were found to be proved. In a couple of cases notices were not properly served.
The appellants should have been provided the complete copy of the Inquiry Report relating to each of the candidates in order to enable them to set up their defence. The final authority that has proceeded to terminate the services of the respondent-
petitioners ought to have been more specific about the involvement of the respondent-petitioners when the charge was one of alleged manipulation. The reason also, to establish the nexus of the respondent-petitioners with the Officers of the Department, has to be recorded on the basis of evidence by passing a speaking order. This was necessary in order to find out the involvement of the respondent-petitioners. Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 48/49 Consequently, the procedure having been violated, the findings arrived at with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the merit position of the respondent-petitioners cannot be said to be wrong in its entirety unless it can be shown that all the respondent-petitioners would fall outside the limit of 150 posts against which employment had been sought.
24. Accordingly to our mind, once the learned Single Judge was of the opinion that there was a procedural violation, then in that event, the matter ought to have been remitted back to the same authority to examine the facts as alleged by the respondent-petitioners after providing the documents that were relevant namely the Inquiry Report and the letters of appointment etc. before proceeding to terminate the services of the respondent-petitioners.
25. In the light of above, we agree with the findings of the learned Single Judge that there were procedural violations, but in view of the fact that the respondent-petitioners were beneficiaries of a selection on account of incorrect depiction of marks, the authorities ought to have put the respondent-petitioners to notice about such facts including the Inquiry Report before having proceeded to terminate their services. The appeals are, therefore, disposed of by modifying Patna High Court L.P.A No.109 of 2018 dt.12-07-2019 49/49 the order of the learned Single Judge to the effect that the appellants shall now afford a fresh opportunity to the respondent-petitioners to give a reply to all the allegations after supplying them a copy of the Inquiry Report by giving a fresh show cause notice and any other available relevant document and then pass appropriate orders after considering the reply of the respondent-petitioners in accordance with law within a reasonable time.
26. All the appeals stand disposed of accordingly.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ)
Anjana Mishra, J: I agree.
(Anjana Mishra, J)
P.K.P./-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 04.07.2019
Uploading Date 12.07.2019
Transmission Date NA