The State Of Bihar And Ors vs Ram Babu Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 4072 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                   Letters Patent Appeal No.1254 of 2016
                                      In
                Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16580 of 2014
     ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

4. The District Education officer, Jamui

5. The District Programme Officer Establishment , Jamui

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary and Ors S/o Lakhan Choudhary Resident of Village - Chakrasalpur, P.O. Rana Bigha, P.S. Deepnagar, District - Nalanda

2. Dharmendra Kumar S/o Sri Ram Bilash Paswan resident of village -

Gongripar, P.O. Hargawan, P.S. Manpur, Distt. - Nalanda

3. Mukund Murari S/o Sri Mahendra Paswan Resident of Village P.O.

Dafarpur, P.S. Navkothi, District - Begusarai

4. Rekha Kumari D/o Shiwan Ram Resident of Village - Ram Sir, P.O.

Singhchak, P.S. Chanan, District - Lakhisarai

5. Sawan Kumar S/o Sri Sahdeo Paswan Resident of Village P.O. Dafarpur, P.S. Navkothi, District - Begusarai

6. Ajay Kumar Mahto S/o Ram Chandra Mahto Resident of Village - Chak Rasalpur, P.O. Tajpur, P.S. N.H. Bangra, District - Samastipur

7. Arun Kumar Das S/o Ram Briksh Das Resident of Village - Kutubpur Khalsa, P.O. Saidpur Kutubpur, P.S. Bidupur, District - Vaishali

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Letters Patent Appeal No. 707 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6753 of 2013 ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The Director, Primary Education, H.R. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

5. The District Education Officer, Vaishali. Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

6. The District Programme Officer, Establishment, Vaishali.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Shanti Kumari daughter of Jagdeo Rai resident of Village Rajapakar, Police Station - Rajapakar, District - Vaishali.

2. Shivpujan Rai son of Gulab Rai resident of village and Police Station -

Rajapakar, District - Vaishali.

3. Fakir Prasad Singh son of Late Jagdishwar Rai resident of village and P.S. Rajapakar, District - Vaishali.

4. Bajrangi Singh son of Late Dipan Singh resident of village - Arari, P.S. -

Sarai, District - Vaishali.

5. Parmanand Singh son of Late Brahmdeo Singh resident of Rushupur Psti, P.S. - Mahua, District - Vaishali.

6. Yadunandan Singh son of Late Gulab Chand Singh resident of village Prasonia, P.S.- Mahua, District - Vaishali.

7. Mukhtar Singh son of Maithur Singh resident of village and P.S. Rajapakar, District - Vaishali.

8. Ramjee Singh son of Ram Parikchhan Singh resident of village - Chaktha-

Kurasi, P.S. - Biddupur, District - Vaishali.

9. Chandradeo Rai son of Late Fudari Rai resident of village Salempur Nandlalpur, P.S. - Lalganj, District - Vaishali.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1739 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7504 of 2013 ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Vaishali At Hajipur.

4. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Vaishali At Hajipur.

5. The Block Education Officer, Block- Deshri, District- Vaishali At Hajipur.

... ... Appellant/s Versus Ram Babu Singh S/O Sri Ram Milan Singh Resident Of Village- Bhatauli Bhagwan, P.O.P.S.- Kartahan, District- Vaishali At Hajipur.

... ... Respondent/s Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

====================================================== with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1741 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6778 of 2013 ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna

2. The Director, Department Of Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

4. The District Education Officer, Vaishali.

5. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Vaishali.

6. The Block Education Officer, Raghopur Block District Vaishali.

... ... Appellant/s Versus Om Prakash Pankaj Son Of Dyali Paswan Resident Of Village- Rushulpur Turki, P.O.- Ashoi, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Letters Patent Appeal No. 1743 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7045 of 2013 ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar

2. The Director Department Of Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna. null null

3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

4. The District Education Officer, Vaishali.

5. The District Programme Officer Establishment, Vaishali.

6. The Block Education Officer Sahdae Buzurg, Block District- Vaishali.

7. The Secretary, Basic Education Council, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad.

... ... Appellant/s Versus Nand Kishor Singh S/O Ram Sarekh Singh R/O Village- Uchidih, P.O.- Bidupur, P.S.- Bidupur, District- Vaishali ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

Letters Patent Appeal No. 2291 of 2016 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7042 of 2013 ======================================================

1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Education

2. The Director, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari.

4. The District Education officer, East Champaran, Motihari.

5. The District Programme Officer Establishment, East Champaran, Motihari.

6. The Block Education Officer, Chakia Block, District- East Champaran.

7. The Block Education Officer, Rakshaul Block, District- East Champaran .

8. The Block Education Officer, Kalyanpur Block, District- East Champaran.

9. The Secretary, Basic Education Council, Uttar Pradesh, Allahabad.

... ... Appellant/s Versus

1. Satendra Kumar Son of Sri Pashupati Prasad Resident of Village- Pakaridih, P.O.- Pairga, P.S.- Amnaur, District- Saran.

2. Ram Sobhit Sah Son of Sri Akalu Sah Resident of Village- Saifpur, P.O.

Jadhua, P.S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani.

3. Rajendra Kamat Son of Mahesh Kamat Resident of Village- Barail, P.O.-

Teghra, P.S. Babubarhi, District- Madhubani.

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

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1254 of 2016) For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ashok Kumar Pathak For the Respondent/s : M/s Sanjeev Kumar Mishra Sudhir Kumar Singh Gopal Bohra, Advocates (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 707 of 2016) For the Appellant/s : Mr.Ashok Kumar Pathak For the Respondent/s : M/s Kamal Nayan Choubey, Sr. Advocate Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1739 of 2016) For the Appellant/s : M/s Pankaj Kumar, SC 12 Manoj Kumar, AC to SC 12 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Banbari Sharma, Advocate (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1741 of 2016) For the Appellant/s : M/s Pankaj Kumar, SC 12 Manoj Kumar, AC to SC 12 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

(In Letters Patent Appeal No. 1743 of 2016) For the Appellant/s : M/s Pankaj Kumar, SC 12 Manoj Kumar, AC to SC 12 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate (In Letters Patent Appeal No. 2291 of 2016) For the Appellant/s : M/s Pankaj Kumar, SC 12 Manoj Kumar, AC to SC 12 For the Respondent/s : M/s Pravin Ranjan Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocates ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date : 28-08-2023

1. The appeals are by the State of Bihar against the

judgments in writ petitions, holding that the petitioners, who

figured in the list of 34540 elementary teachers approved by the

Hon'ble Apex Court on the recommendation of the Bihar Staff

Selection Commission should not be disturbed. It was also held

in CWJC No. 6753 of 2013 that it was for the Commission to

have done their job carefully and had it been a little more

vigilant the present situation could have been averted.

Following the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the

learned Single Judge refused interference with the

appointments. This judgment was followed in the other writ

petitions against which also the State of Bihar has filed the

appeals. In the judgments passed following the judgment in

CWJC No. 6753 of 2013, the Director, Secondary Education, Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

Government of Bihar was directed to verify their cases and if

found similar to that of the petitioners in CWJC No. 6753 of

2013 to annul the order passed by the District Education Officer,

Jamui terminating their services and order reinstatement

immediately thereafter.

2. The State is in appeal especially contending that

the qualification of the respondents herein who were the writ

petitioners were not valid. In the said circumstances it is prayed

that there should be a re-examination of the appointment

granted itself.

3. We have heard learned Government Advocate

Pankaj Kumar, SC 12 assisted by Kamlesh Kumar, AC to SC 12

for the appellants and learned Senior Counsel Kamal Nayan

Choubey and learned counsels Banwari Sharma, Gyanendra

Kumar Shukla, Sudhir Kumar Singh, Pravin Ranjan and Shashi

Bhushan Kumar for the respondents.

4. We have to notice the background facts for a

proper understanding of the issue raised now. Special Leave

Petition (Civil) Nos. 22882 - 22888 of 2004 were filed by

several trained teachers for a direction to appoint them in the

vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the State of Bihar.

On 18.01.2006, the State Government submitted an undertaking Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court that there is a decision taken

to recruit trained teachers as per the new recruitment Rules

contemplated, especially in the context of the Bihar Elementary

Teachers Appointment Rules, 2003 having been quashed by the

High Court of Patna. It was also undertaken that since the

number of available trained teachers in the State is expected to

be less than the available vacancies, no test for selection is

required. It was, hence, undertaken that there is no requirement

to refer the selection to the Bihar Public Service Commission to

initiate the process of recruitment and to that extent the

judgment of the High Court of Patna may be modified.

5. The Hon'ble Supreme Court by order dated

23.01.2006 disposed of the SLPs recording the undertaking.

However, the undertaking was not complied with and hence a

number of contempt petitions were filed. In the contempt

petitions, the State raised a contention that, in the subsequent

period there were more teachers qualified, than on the date of

undertaking and that there would be requirement for a proper

selection to be conducted. In fact, the submission was to the

effect that there are more teachers than the vacancies available

and hence there should be a selection conducted. However, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court was of the opinion that the undertaking Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

as on that date should be complied with by the State of Bihar.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court also ascertained a total of 34540

vacancies which were available as on the date of undertaking.

The persons who were qualified as on the date of undertaking

were directed to be appointed. Justice V.A.Mohta, a retired

Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court was appointed as Special

Officer in whose presence the select list was to be settled.

Justice V.A. Mohta recused from the assignment and Justice

S.K.Chattopadhyay, a retired Judge of the High Court of Patna

was appointed in his place.

6. A list was prepared in accordance with the

directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and later, again

contempt petitions were considered by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court as seen from the order dated 13.10.2011. The order passed

in Contempt Petition No. 297 of 2007 is produced as Annexure

2 along with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the

appellant-State of Bihar in LPA No. 707 of 2016. The learned

Government Advocate alertly points out the issue raised therein

and the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in so far as

verification of the credentials of the candidates. We specifically

extract the same:

"The second issue which has been raised by Mr. Kailash Vasdev is with regard to the examination of Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

the certificates and other documents that may be produced by the candidate concerned at the time of counselling and appointment. In the event, during scrutiny it is found that any of the documents do not conform to the requirements, the concerned authorities will be at liberty to take appropriate steps regarding the said candidate."

7. Learned Government Advocate submits that it is

in compliance of such direction that now the procedure has been

taken up to verify the eligibility of the certificates produced by

the individual respondents herein, who are the writ petitioners in

the batch of writ petitions.

8. In this context we specifically observe that when

the said order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Contempt Petition No. 297 of 2007, on 13.10.2011, Justice

Chattopadhyay's report was already in place. The Bench of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court specifically expressed their

appreciation on the work carried out by Justice Chattopadhyay.

Hence there could be nothing further agitated by the State with

respect to the persons who are included in Justice

Chattopadhyay's list; which the party respondents herein assert

they were and so were they appointed in compliance of the

judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

9. Now we come back to the last of the orders Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No. 26824

of 2012 on 18.07.2013. Therein the order passed on 13.10.2011

in Contempt Petition No. 87 of 2013 arising in Contempt

Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 2007 in SLP (C) No. 22882 of 2004

was specifically noticed. It was found that those who have been

appointed as against the 34540 vacancies shall not be disturbed.

It was also noticed that there were 2413 vacancies posts

remaining unfilled. That SLP was with respect to candidates

who have not obtained admission as per Justice

Chattopadhyay's list. The Hon'ble Supreme Court hence

directed that all these candidates could approach the Hon'ble

High Court to agitate their individual grievances. In fact as of

now, in the present batch of appeals, none of these candidates

are persons who had approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court

whose case was considered in SLP (C) No. 26824 of 2012. At

the risk of repetition, we notice that the party respondents herein

are persons who are included in Justice Chattopadhyay's list but

who are said to have been not holding valid qualifications, on

which ground the State has now terminated them.

10. In this context, we again look at the judgment of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C) No. 26824 of 2012

wherein the following directions were issued :

"We also direct that the applications, Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

special leave petitions and writ petitions filed before us be treated as withdrawn, with liberty to the parties to approach the High Court individually or otherwise, for relief, if any, but without, in any way, affecting the appointments of those teachers who have already been appointed against the vacant 34,540 posts and are working. We have been informed during the hearing that about 2413 posts out of the 34,540 posts were still left to be filled up. All the applications, Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations. We make it clear that none of the persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should be disturbed in any way, but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into consideration, while disposing of the applications in question."

11. By the aforesaid extract, the Hon'ble Supreme

Court had categorically held that there cannot be any

disturbance of those persons who were appointed as against the

34540 vacancies, who are presumably those persons included in

Justice Chattopadhyay's list.

12. In such circumstances, there could be no

termination on the basis of a further verification. We perfectly

agree with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in CWJC

No. 6753 of 2013 that the State should have been more vigilant

in making the appointments, especially when the list was

prepared under the supervision of a retired Judge of the High

Court as appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. If at all any Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

disturbance has to be made, it can only be made on the orders of

the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

13. We also notice the judgment of a learned Single

Judge pointed out by the learned Government Advocate. In a

batch of writ petitions , numbered as CWJC No. 17310 of 2013

(Md. Shaheed Vs. The State of Bihar) and analogous cases

produced along with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf

of the appellants, in LPA No. 707 of 2016. The specific

reference was to paragraph no. 34 of the said decision, which is

extracted here under:

"34. As a matter of fact, even before appointment of the petitioners and others in the light of the 34540 posts of teachers on the basis of the panel prepared by Hon'ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhayaya and approved by the Apex Court, it was made clear by the Apex Court in its order dated 13.10.2011, already quoted above, that the examination of certificates and other documents was to be made at the time of counseling and appointment and in the event during its scrutiny if it was found that any of the document do not conform to the requirement, appropriate steps should be taken against the candidates concerned. Thus, in view of the earlier order of the Apex Court dated 13.10.2011, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that their appointment once made could not have been cancelled because of the order dated 18.7.2013 even if they do not fulfill the requisite qualification."

Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

14. We are of the opinion that the said directions

cannot be sustained especially looking at the order of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court passed on 18.07.2013, which

categorically declared that those persons who are appointed in

the 34540 vacancies shall not be disturbed. We only notice that

the petitioners herein were not parties in the said batch of writ

petitions. Hence they cannot be denied of the benefit of the

order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court which was passed on

18.07.2013, which is binding on the State of Bihar.

15. We further notice the judgment of a Division

Bench of this Court produced as Annexure B, along with the

counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 4 in CWJC No. 6753 of

2013. The Division Bench after noticing the order of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court dismissed the writ petitions claiming

selection to the balance vacancies other than those filled up

from 34540 posts. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also

noticed in the order dated 18.07.2013 that 2413 posts out of the

34540 posts were still left to be filled up. The direction by the

Division Bench in LPA No. 1491 of 2014 and the analogous

cases were to the effect that the Committee shall consider the

case of the petitioners therein, in accordance with the procedure

that was followed in the selection of 32127 teachers on the Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

previous occasion. We are not concerned with the directions in

LPA No. 1491 of 2014 which are with respect to the persons

who were denied appointment as per the selection earlier

conducted by the State of Bihar on the supervision of Justice

Chattopadhyay.

16. We are of the definite opinion that in the present

case where all the party-respondents were appointed as per the

directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under the supervision

of Justice Chattopadhyay, cannot be terminated on grounds of

qualifications not having been properly verified; unless

otherwise permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The party

respondents were appointed after their eligibility being settled

by Justice Chattopadhyay, appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court, to oversee the selection and appointment of teachers to

the vacant posts, identified as available, as per the undertaking

made by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though

the verification of credentials and qualifications of the

candidates were directed to be done, there could be no such

verification at this late stage. As noticed by the learned Single

Judge in the impugned judgment the State ought to have been

more vigilant when the appointments were carried out.

17. We hence find no merit in the appeals filed by Patna High Court L.P.A No.1254 of 2016 dt.28-08-2023

the State and dismiss the same.

                                              (K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)


                                                    ( Partha Sarthy, J)
Spd/-Shiv
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          31.08.2023
Transmission Date       N/A