Patna High Court - Orders
Md. Motiullah & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 19 September, 2013
Author: Navin Sinha
Bench: Navin Sinha, Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.514 of 2013
======================================================
1. Md. Motiullah Son Of Late Md. Yaqoob Resident Of Village- Jamua,
Po- Jamua, Via- Dhaka, Ps- Dhaka, District- East Champaran
2. Pramod Kumar Jha Son Of Sri Lakshman Jha Resident Of Village-
Pathrighat, Ps- Bettiah, Ps- Bairiya, District- West Champaran
3. Raj Kishore Kuer Son Of Sri Asharfi Kuer Resident Of Village-
Bankatwa, Ps- Chanpatia, District- West Champaran
4. Om Prakash Mishra Son Of Sri Gopal Jee Mishra Resident Of Village-
Giddha, Ps- Chanpatia, District- West Champaran
5. Md. Shamshad Son Of Late Md. Yunus Resident Of Village- Barahbatra,
Po- Ara, District- Ara
6. Md. Maqsood Alam Son Of Late Sakur Alam Resident Of Village-
Barahbatra, Po- Ara, District- Ara
7. Mahesh Tiwari Son Of Late Ram Deo Tiwary Resident Of Village-
Giddha, Po- Chaubey Tola, Ps- Chanpatia, Distt.- West Champaran
8. Md. Habibullah Son Of Samsul Resident Of Village- Mohamadpur, Po-
Bhandar, Ps- Dhaka, East Champaran
9. Amirul Haq Son Of Abdul Hafij Resident Of Village- Chandmohan, Ps-
Kundawa Chainpur, Distt.- East Champaran
10. Sudama Mishra Son Of Sri Kant Mishra Resident Of Village- Gidha,
Po- Chaubey Tola, Ps- Chanpatia, Distt.- West Champaran
11. Shambhu Nath Kuer Son Of Late Asharfi Kuer Resident Of Village-
Bankatwa, Po- Yadav Chapar, Ps- Chanpatia, District- West Champaran
.... .... Petitioners/Appellants
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of
Human Resources Development, Patna, Bihar
2. The Director Primary Education, New Secretariate, Patna
3. The Regional Deputy Of Education, Tirhut Division, Muzaffarpur, Bihar
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pathak Dhananjay Kumar
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)
2 19-09-2013Heard learned counsel for the appellants and the respondents.
The present appeal arises from order dated Patna High Court LPA No.514 of 2013 (2) dt.19-09-2013 2 04.01.2013 dismissing C.W.J.C. No. 13317 of 2009 on the grounds of delay. The appellants were appointed as Assistant Teachers in different Government Basic Schools under Tirhut Division, District- Muzaffarpur in the year 1982-83. They were terminated on 22.01.1985. In C.W.J.C. No. 598 of 1985, disposed on 11.04.1985, they were directed to represent before the Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. The representations were rejected on 18.06.1985.
C.W.J.C. No. 4325 of 1985, challenging the latter was dismissed on 13.09.1985. Special Leave Petitions was filed against the same which was disposed on 02.05.1986 with directions to issue Advertisement for filling up the posts and if the appellants applied their past experience and service should also be considered. The prayer to be reappointed on ad hoc basis pending regular appointments was rejected. The issue of their termination therefore attained finality inter parties.
In the mean time, certain others also terminated had come to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3635 of 1985, 4208 of 1985, 4147 of 1985 and 4328 of 1985. By order dated 30.08.1985, directions to allow them to continue till regular appointments were made. This is one of the grounds urged to allege discrimination by contending that they are still continuing. They have also been included in the fresh panel like the appellants.
Patna High Court LPA No.514 of 2013 (2) dt.19-09-2013 3
Advertisement was then published on 07.08.1988 and the appellants applied. They appeared at the Interview on 20.12.1988 and the final panel was prepared in the year 1988 itself. The appointments were not made. The writ application for enforcement of the panel was filed in the year 2009 leading to the impugned order.
In the year 2007 certain others came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10568 of 2007 and analogous cases disposed on 20.05.2008. It was noticed that after the dismissal of the earlier Special Leave Petition the petitioners therein moved the Supreme Court again which by its order dated 30.09.1986 directed reinstatement till fresh appointment. Fresh show cause notice was issued to them in the year 1988 on the ground that they were untrained teachers and the documents produced by them were forged.
Learned counsel for the appellants urged that if the advertisement was published, Interviews conducted and panel prepared in 1988, the working of the panel by making appointments of the eligible was the duty of the respondents. If they defaulted in performance of their duties they cannot have the benefit of their own lapses to visit the appellants with the consequence of the delay. It was next submitted that they are being subjected to hostile discrimination as others who were similarly terminated came to this Court and got orders for their reinstatement pending regular appointments and whose names Patna High Court LPA No.514 of 2013 (2) dt.19-09-2013 4 also figured in the fresh panel prepared like the appellants. It was lastly submitted that as recently as 20.05.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 10568 of 2007 relief has been granted to similarly situated persons even though there were allegations of forgery against them.
Counsel for the State emphasizes that in service matters delay is vital. The appellants did not possess the requisite qualification under the Advertisement of being trained teachers. Issues with regard to the life of the panel were also urged.
We have considered the submissions on behalf of the parties.
If a panel was prepared in 1988, it had a life of one year only after which it would violate Article 14 of the Constitution as held in (2009) 11 SCC 448 ( Man Singh Vrs. Commissioner, Garhwal Mandal, Pauri & Ors.) and (2006) 12 SCC 561 (State of Bihar & Ors. Vrs. Amrendra Kumar Mishra). It stands equally settled in (1974) 3 SCC 220 (State of Haryana Vrs. Subash Chander Marwaha & Ors.) that mere empanelment creates no right to appointment.
Applying the aforesaid principles, before the appellants take shelter of inaction on part of the respondents, there is no plausible explanation on their behalf in the writ application for this long inordinate delay from 1988 to 2009. Relying on certain information that may have been obtained by Patna High Court LPA No.514 of 2013 (2) dt.19-09-2013 5 them under the Right to Information Act subsequently, is of no avail as the cause of action was independent of the information furnished under the Act. The availability of information under the Right to Information Act does not furnish a cause of action by itself in the facts of the case.
We have already noticed that the termination order of the appellants attained finality with the dismissal of their Special Leave Petition including rejection of their prayer for continuing ad hoc till regular appointments were made. Orders to that effect, passed in a writ petition filed by any others before the order of the Supreme Court, can be of no benefit to the appellants. The order dated 20.05.2008 in C.W.J.C. No. 10568 of 2007 as already discussed by us is completely distinguishable on its own fact they having moved the Supreme Court after dismissal of their Special Leave Petition and obtained orders for reinstatement pending regular appointments etc. In the entirety of the discussion, we find no reason to interfere with the order under appeal.
The appeal is dismissed.
(Navin Sinha, J)
P.K./- (Vikash Jain, J)