Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 10 of 35 (0.31 seconds)Article 3 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 14 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Kumari Shanti vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 May, 2016
In the case of Shanti Kumari Vs. State of Bihar &
Ors. this Court in its judgment dated 17.01.2017 in C.W.J.C. No.
17904 of 2016 inter alia observed as follows:-
Article 226 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Article 97 in Constitution of India [Constitution]
Brajesh Kumar Bharadwaj & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 13 April, 2018
36. In course of hearing of C.W.J.C. No.1690 of 1997
which was filed by Smt. Shushma Kumari and other primary
teachers claiming pay benefits for the period 20.07.1985 to
17.05.1990, the then Director, Secondary Education, Bihar filed a
reply contending that the lady teachers appointed during the period
from 1980 onwards were appointed illegally and consequently the
promotion given to them was also irregular. This Court was
informed that the matter of appointment/ promotion of these
Patna High Court No.20636 of 2021 dt.26-09-2023
41/87
teachers was under investigation with Cabinet Vigilance
Department and the Government of Bihar had set up an inquiry
committee to inquire into the matter. This Court vide order
date19.09.1997 directed the Government of Bihar to take final
decision in the matter. An inquiry was also started by the Cabinet
Vigilance Investigation Bureau, Bihar. While the said inquiry was
in progress, in C.W.J.C. No.9847 of 1998 (Brajesh Kumar and
others vs. State of Bihar and others) this Court issued directions
to the CBI to take up the investigation into the matter of
appointments of primary teachers and other teachers in the State of
Bihar from 1980 till date. It is in these facts and circumstances,
the CBI Anti Corruption Branch registered the preliminary inquiry
No.3 (A/01) dated 08.06.2001.
Kaushal Kumar vs The State Of Bihar on 2 February, 2023
43. Despite submission of the CBI report revealing
startling facts and then recommendation to the State Authorities,
no action was taken for obvious reason. Right from the then
Politicians to the Assistant in the Education Department and a
large number of officers who had made illegal appointments were
likely to suffer the consequences of legal action. The CBI report
was dumped. The State respondents at a much belated stage
proceeded to take action only after the Hon'ble Division Bench of
this Court passed an order dated 19.09.2016 in C.W.J.C. No.
10002 of 2016 (Kaushal Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.).
The Hon'ble Division Bench having noticed that no action had
been taken by the State respondents on the report of the CBI called
upon the Principle Secretary of the Department, the Director,
Secondary Education, Regional Deputy Director of Education,
Magadh Division, Gaya to appear in Court. Subsequently, the
Hon'ble Division Bench was informed that actions have been
taken by the State upon recommendation of the CBI which are
now subject matter of large number of the individual writ petitions.
Taking note of it, the Hon'ble Division Bench observed that as
Patna High Court No.20636 of 2021 dt.26-09-2023
50/87
State has taken action, the writ petition had outlived its purpose. It
was, thus, permitted to be withdrawn.
The State Of Bihar vs Devendra Sharma on 17 October, 2019
In the totality of the circumstances, since this Court has
found that this is a case akin to and seems to be nearer to the case of
appointments of Class III and Class IV posts in the Tuberculosis
Eradication Scheme by Dr. Mallick and this Court has noticed the
Patna High Court No.20636 of 2021 dt.26-09-2023
68/87
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Devendra
Sharma (supra), this Court finds no reason to interfere with the same.
State Of Mysore & Anr vs S. V. Narayanappa on 22 August, 1966
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court referred the State of
Mysore v. S.V. Narayanappa reported in (1967) 1 SCR 128 : AIR
1967 SC 1071, R.N. Nanjundappa v. T. Thimmiah reported in (1972)
1 SCC 409 and B.N. Nagarajan v. State of Karnataka reported in
(1979) 4 SCC 507 and held that there may be cases where irregular
appointments (not illegal appointments) may be made as explained in
those judgments.