Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 138 (0.59 seconds)
Documents citing Kumari Kalpana Rani & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 September, 2010

Rita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 30 July, 2025

5. Learned senior counsel Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey submitted that Full Bench decision in the case of Kalpana Rani vs. State of Bihar reported in 2014(2) PLJR 665 is binding on the Division Bench. If there is any disagreement with the Full Bench decision by the Division Bench, in that event, matter is required to be referred to Larger Bench. In the present case, question of difference or disagreeing with the Full Bench decision is not the issue. On the other hand, issue is on merits among the appellant-Rita Kumari and 8th respondent-Rima Kumari insofar as selection and appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Shikshak before abolition and its affirmation. Abolition and its affirmation on judicial side has no bearing insofar as the subject matter of the present lis depends upon the fact that who is merited and who is Patna High Court L.P.A No.1286 of 2019 dt.30-07-2025 11/13 not merited insofar as selection and appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Shikshak. We would not have taken the burden of deciding the matter on merits, if the effect of abolition results in 8th respondent-Rima Kumari's termination. On the other hand, she has been accommodated against a teacher post under Rules, resultantly appellant has every right to claim over the post of Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Shikshak up to the date of abolition of the post and its affirmation by the Full Bench decision in the case of Kalpana Rani cited (supra). Further, appellant has right to seek selection and appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra/Panchayat Shikshak. Thereafter she is entitled to be accommodated against a teacher post on par with 8th respondent Rima Kumari under the relevant rules as there is no fault on the part of Appellant and she is more merited than 8th Respondent. In the light of these facts and circumstances, the Full Bench decision in the case of Kalpana Rani cited (supra) has no application to the facts of the case. Hence, appellant has made out a case so as to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 02.09.2019 and it is set aside. Resultantly, CWJC No. 3428 of 2018 filed by the Appellant is allowed.
Patna High Court Cites 4 - Cited by 0 - P B Bajanthri - Full Document

Rajeev Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 3 September, 2024

25. Having considered all facts and circumstances, we are fully conscious of the law as has been settled by the Full Bench in the case of Kalpana Rani (supra) and it has also been brought to out notice that the matter went up to the Apex Court and the S.L.P. preferred against the aforementioned Full Bench judgment has been dismissed. Thus, there is no dispute with regard to the settled proposition of law as is being argued by the respondent 1st set herein, but in the given facts and circumstances, the said judgment cannot come to the rescue of the contesting respondents as the element of fraud is patent and manifests all through the chequered history of this litigation. Yet petitioners had continued in service till objections were raised.
Patna High Court Cites 10 - Cited by 0 - A K Sharan - Full Document

Rekha Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 13 March, 2019

In the instant case, it is undisputed that the respondent-petitioner Rajendra Kumar Paswan was appointed on 28.2.2005. It is correct that he was only High School pass, was not holding the qualification of Intermediate as required. However, he had not obtained the appointment on the basis of any fraud inasmuch as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which is the select-list, mentions the name of the respondent-petitioner at Serial 5 with the qualification as Matric having obtained 515 marks out of 900 marks. One other candidate Shri Subhas Kumar, who was also Matric was selected and appointed at Serial 6. The respondent-petitioner was selected and appointed Patna High Court L.P.A No.264 of 2018 dt.13-03-2019 22/29 at the Primary School, Tanpura. Shri Ramesh Kumar was appointed at the Middle School, Ukaura in the same capacity. It is, thus, clear that it was the respondent-petitioner and Shri Ramesh Kumar who had been selected and appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitras. Further, we find that the Full Bench case of Kalpana Rani (supra) was delivered in a contest between an aspirant and a selected candidate. It was in this context that it was held that a mere aspirant cannot challenge the appointment of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitras inasmuch as the scheme has come to an end on 1st July, 2006 and, therefore, since an aspirant cannot be now appointed as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, the validity of engagement of an appointed candidate was not required to be re-opened at the instance of such a person. It is correct that in the present case the appellant and the respondent are both claiming appointment and neither of them are aspirants. Yet, what is noticeable is that the respondent Rajendra Kumar Paswan was admittedly and undisputedly appointed prior to the appellant on 28th February, 2005. The then Mukhiya Aurangazeb is stated to have issued the letter of appointment who was also examined by the Block Development Officer while passing the impugned order on 20th July, 2009. The Mukhiya has nowhere denied the appointment of the respondent-petitioner in 2005 and Patna High Court L.P.A No.264 of 2018 dt.13-03-2019 23/29 has rather proceeded to state that since the respondent-petitioner was only possessed of High School qualification, therefore, in his place in the year 2006 the appellant came to be appointed. The factum of removal of the respondent-petitioner was not established by any document or any material on record. The then Panchayat Secretary Om Prakash was not produced by the appellant and in spite of notice having been sent to him, he did not turn up nor did he send any explanation. In this background, there were two appointment letters, one of the respondent- petitioner that was a document of renewal for another period of 11 months and which appears to be in consonance with the earlier appointment in the previous tenure commencing from 1.3.2005 to 31.1.2006. The appointment in the previous tenure is not denied and, therefore, the renewal appointment of the respondent-petitioner dated 20th of February, 2006 is clearly in tune with the earlier engagement. However, there is no document relating to his removal.
Patna High Court Cites 9 - Cited by 0 - Full Document

Gurjeet Singh And Ors. vs . State And Ors. on 19 April, 2019

13. The relief with reference to declaring Section 3 (b) of J&K Civil Services (Special Provisions) Act, 2010 is ultra-vires to the Constitution of India is already declined by this Court while deciding the case of similarly situated academic arrangement incumbents titled Rajani Kumari and Ors. Vs. State and Ors., reported in 2017 (1) JKJ 310 [HC]. Paragraph 4 and 5 being relevant are extracted as under:-
Jammu & Kashmir High Court - Srinagar Bench Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - A Magrey - Full Document

Babita Devi vs The State Of Bihar on 21 March, 2022

20. It is noteworthy that Mr. S.B.K. Manglam has also submitted that the impugned notifications can at the best be treated to be notifications under Section 8(c) of the Municipal Act and not under Section 6 of the said Act. The said submission deserves to be rejected in view of this Court's decision dated 24.02.2022 rendered in CWJC No. 21180 of 2021 (Rani Kumari Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.) paragraphs 18 to 21 of which read as under :
Patna High Court Cites 23 - Cited by 0 - Full Document
1   2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next