Patna High Court
Shyambabu Choudhary vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 1 December, 2023
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6386 of 2013
======================================================
Shyambabu Choudhary, S/O Late Jagnath Prasad Choudhary, R/O Village-
Jadhua Barai Tola, P.S.+P.O.- Industrial Area Hajipur, District- Vaishali
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of
Education, Government 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. Block Education Officer, Raghopur, Vaishali
7. The Bihar School Examination Board through its Secretary, Bihar School
Examination Board, Patna
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanendra Kumar Shukla, Advocate
Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Madhukar Mishra, AC to SC-16
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-12-2023
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the respondents.
2. The petitioner has filed the instant application
praying for quashing the memo no.1315 dated 28.2.2013 issued
by the District Education Officer, Vaishali (respondent no.4)
whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner as
Assistant Teacher was cancelled, to direct the respondent
authorities not to disturb the petitioner in discharging his duties
and for other reliefs.
Patna High Court CWJC No.6386 of 2013 dt.01-12-2023
2/4
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that having
obtained his training from Arya Primary Teacher's Training
College, Chhatwara, Mahua, Vaishali in the session 1979-81 and
being eligible in all respects, the petitioner filed an application
for appointment as an Assistant Teacher pursuant to the
Advertisement no. 210/2010 issued by the Bihar Staff Selection
Commission, Patna. In light of the direction of the Hon'ble
Apex Court, the Bihar Staff Selection Commission prepared a
panel of 34,540 trained Assistant Teachers for appointment. The
petitioner's name also figured in the said panel.
4. Referring to the Division Bench order of this Court
dated 28.8.2023 passed in LPA no. 1254 of 2016, learned
counsel for the petitioner submits that it was categorically held
therein that persons appointed in the 34,540 vacancies could not
be disturbed. The petitioner being amongst those appointed
against the said vacancies, the order of termination as contained
in the order impugned dated 28.2.2013 was illegal, the order
was not sustainable and fit to be set aside with all consequential
benefits to the petitioner.
5. Different counter affidavits were filed on behalf of
the respondents at different stages. Lastly, in the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the District Programme Officer
Patna High Court CWJC No.6386 of 2013 dt.01-12-2023
3/4
(Establishment), Vaishali (respondent no.5) on 8.11.2023 it has
been categorically stated in paragraph no.10 thereof that the
case of the petitioner is also covered by the judgment passed by
the Division Bench in LPA no. 1254 of 2016 and other
analogous cases and as such the claim of the petitioner may be
disposed of in light of the said order.
6. At this stage, it would be relevant to quote
paragraph no.16 of the Division Bench judgment dated
28.8.2023
passed in LPA no. 1254 of 2016 (The State of Bihar
& Ors. vs. Sanjay Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. and other
analogous cases) which is as follows:-
"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
Patna High Court CWJC No.6386 of 2013 dt.01-12-2023
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."
7. In view of the aforesaid judgment dated 28.8.2023
and the categorical stand of the respondents in paragraph no.10
of the counter affidavit of respondent no.5 as referred to herein
above, this writ application is allowed. The order contained in
memo no.1315 dated 28.2.2013 passed by the District Education
Officer, Vaishali (respondent no.4) setting aside the appointment
of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher is hereby quashed with
all consequential benefits and the writ application is allowed.
8. The petitioner shall be entitled to the arrears of
salary for the period he was illegally restrained from working as
an Assistant Teacher and the same shall be paid to the petitioner
by the District Education Officer, Vaishali (respondent no.4)
within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy
of this order.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
avinash/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE N/A
Uploading Date 04.12.2023
Transmission Date N/A
