Bireshwar Sah vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 2781 Patna

          IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                       Letters Patent Appeal No.68 of 2021
                                        In
                  Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.23816 of 2019
     ======================================================

1. Bireshwar Sah Son of Late Thanedar Sah Resident of Village-Panditpur, Police Station-Pipra Kothi, District-East Champaran (Motihari).

2. Prabhat Kiran Singh Son of Late Ram Charitra Singh Resident of VillageManin, Police Station-Karnoul, District-Muzaffarpur.

3. Arshad Hussain Son of Ainul Haque, Resident of Village-Pratappati, Police Station-Sahebganj, District-Muzaffarpur.

4. Krishna Kumar Singh Son of Late Ramashraya Singh Resident of Village-

Gokhula, Police, Station-Baruraj, District-Muzaffarpur.

... ... Appellant/s

Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director (Secondary Education), Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Muzaffarpur.

4. The District Education Officer, Muzaffarpur.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant/s : Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar Manglam For the Respondent/s : Mr.Lalit Kishore (Ag) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH CAV JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA)

Date : 11-05-2022

The present appeal has been filed against the Patna High Court L.P.A No.68 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022

order dated 16.12.2019 passed by a learned Single

Judge of this Court in CWJC No. 23816 of 2019.

The petitioners had approached the writ court

against the order passed by the District Education

Officer, Muzaffarpur whereby and whereunder the

case of the petitioners for reappointment, after

superannuation, was not considered. It is the claim

of the appellants herein that according to the

Government's resolution dated 23.1.2014, retired

teaches are to be reappointed on contract basis up

to attainment of the age of 65 years till

appointment of regular teachers, however, the

case of the appellants herein has not been

considered by the District Education Officer,

Muzaffarpur.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the

Respondent-State has submitted that the District

Education Officer, Muzaffarpur, by the impugned

office order dated 18.3.2019, had though

considered the case of the appellants herein, but

had found that the appointment process regarding

appointment of teachers had been conducted in Patna High Court L.P.A No.68 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022

various phases, which was completed in the month

of January, 2017, hence, the appointment process

for appointing teachers on contract basis more so

after superannuation of the concerned teachers

could not take place. Nonetheless, it is submitted

that liberty has been granted to the appellants

herein to apply after requisition is made by schools

for appointment of teachers. In such view of the

matter, it is submitted that the appellants herein

cannot have any grievance.

We have heard the learned counsel for the

parties and deemed it fit and proper to reproduce

the relevant portion of the impugned order dated

16.12.2019 hereinbelow:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that according to the resolution as contained in Memo No.104 dated23.01.2014, the retired Teachers are to be appointed on contract basis uptill 65 years by the concerned Selection Committee till the appointment of the Regular Teachers in accordance with law. The appointment on contract basis was to be completed by the month of January, Patna High Court L.P.A No.68 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022

2017. On that ground, the District Education Officer rejected the petitions of the petitioners for their reappointment after their superannuation with liberty to the petitioners that the petitioners may apply after requisition ofsuch appointment in the schools. Now, the process of appointment on contract basis has already been completed and there is no requirement for appointment on contract basis.

Having considered the facts aforesaid, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. Accordingly, the same is dismissed"

We find that much water has flown and

apparently, there is no requirement for

appointment of teachers on contractual basis, a

fact which has not been disputed by the appellants

herein inasmuch as no such averment has been

made in the present appeal, however, we find that

if the Government's policy contained in resolution

dated 23.1.2014 is in force, the appellants are

obviously free to approach the concerned Patna High Court L.P.A No.68 of 2021 dt.11-05-2022

authorities for their reemployment. Consequently,

we do not find any error in the impugned order

dated 16.12.2019, thus, the present appeal stands

dismissed not only on merits but also on the

ground of delay inasmuch as there is a delay of

335 days in filing the Appeal, for which no cogent

much less sufficient cause has been shown so as to

warrant condonation of delay in filing the appeal.

(Rajan Gupta, J)

( Mohit Kumar Shah, J)

Ajay/-

AFR/NAFR                NAFR
CAV DATE                26.4.2022
Uploading Date          11.5.2022
Transmission Date       NA