Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1076 (PAT)

Santosh Kumar Jha v. State Of Bihar

2008-08-04

NAVIN SINHA

body2008
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State. 2. The issue for consideration being common, all the three applications are being disposed by this common order. 3. In view of the nature of the order proposed to be passed, this Court does not consider it necessary to issue notice to the private respondents. 4. An advertisement was published in the year-2007 by the respondents inviting applications for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery under the Bihar Gram Kutchery Secretary (Employment Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that they fulfilled the qualifications for the same inasmuch as they had passed the Madhyama examination conducted by the Bihar Sanskrit Siksha Board and which degree was considered equivalent to the Matriculation. Their applications were considered when their names were placed above those appointed on the said post in the merit list for such appointment. In the meantime an order came to be issued by the Director of Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar dated 28.9.2007 bearing No. 4633 inter alia that the degree of Madhyama was not equivalent to Matriculation. As a consequence the petitioners despite their seniority in the panel have been ignored and private respondents whose names figured below the petitioners have been appointed. That the respondent-State Government had taken a policy decision on 11.1.1999 under Memo No. 36 that the qualification of Madhyama was equivalent to Matriculation and which has been ignored by respondent themselves. 6. Learned counsel for the State prayed for time to file counter affidavit. This Court was not inclined to adjourn the matter for the purpose. By an order dated 31.1.2008 this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 13905 of 2007 with reference to the Governments policy decision dated 11.1.1991 has already held that the State had taken a conscious decision to treat the qualification of Madhyama as equivalent to Matriculation. Direction was then issued to consider the case of the petitioners therein on the post of Secretary, Gram Panchayat in accordance therewith and their position in the seniority list. The judgment in the writ petition has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 308/08 preferred by the State-respondents. 7. This Court has repeatedly observed that the State does not stand in the position of a private litigant. Its primary duty is to assist the Court in dispensation of justice. The judgment in the writ petition has been affirmed in L.P.A. No. 308/08 preferred by the State-respondents. 7. This Court has repeatedly observed that the State does not stand in the position of a private litigant. Its primary duty is to assist the Court in dispensation of justice. The Court would have thought that in view of the judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 13905/07 affirmed in L.P.A. No. 308/08 on 3.7.2008 the respondents would have had the grace to acknowledge the decision in law so that this Court was not burdened unnecessarily requiring an adjudicatory order in this writ petition, especially when the order in C.W.J.C. No.13905/07 is already on record as Annexure-9. 8. The contention of the respondents that the private respondents shall be prejudicially affected and must be heard before the writ application is disposed, does not impress this Court. The illegality is the creation of the respondents themselves ignoring there own policy decision of Government dated 11.1.1991. The knot created by them is for them to disentangle and not for the Court when no legal issues are involved for adjudication. 9. This application is allowed. The respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioners for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchery in accordance with law under the policy decision dated 11.1.1999 after hearing all concerned within a maximum period of 3 months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order before respondent No. 5. 10. Notwithstanding the Governments own policy decision dated 11.1.1999 and the orders in C.W.J.C. No. 13905/07 and L.P.A. No. 308/08, there are a large number of writ applications still pending before this Court on the issue of equivalence of a degree of Madhyama to Matriculation. Very frequently motions are made that the matter stands decided by this Court and, therefore, the writ applications may be taken up for disposal on priority basis because the respondents insist on individual applicants bringing individual orders from the court and without which they are not willing to consider their cases. 11. Once this Court has adjudicated the matter and held that the qualification of Madhyama was equivalent to Matriculation and which has been tested in appeal by the State, nothing further remains. The issue of law having been decided there shall be no justification for the respondents to insist on each of the petitioners bringing individual orders from this Court. 11. Once this Court has adjudicated the matter and held that the qualification of Madhyama was equivalent to Matriculation and which has been tested in appeal by the State, nothing further remains. The issue of law having been decided there shall be no justification for the respondents to insist on each of the petitioners bringing individual orders from this Court. It is nothing but symptomatic of intentional harassment. This Court can do no better than to quote from the relevant extract of paragraph 29 of the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in State of Karnataka and Others V/s. C. Lalitha, 2006 2 SCC 747 . 29. "Service jurisprudence evolved by this Court from time to time postulates that all persons similarly situated should be treated similarly. Only because one person has approached the Court that would not mean that persons similarly situated should be treated differently"...... 12. To the same effect is the observation of the Supreme Court in paragraph-16 of the judgment in K.T. Veerappa and Others V/s. State of Karnataka and Others, 2006 9 SCC 406. 16."The defence of the State Government that as the appellants were not the petitioners in the writ petition filed by 23 employees of the respondent-University to whom the benefit of revised pay scales was granted by the Court, the appellants are estopped from raising their claim of revised pay scales in the year 1992-94, is wholly unjustified, patently irrational, arbitrary and discriminatory. As noticed in the earlier part of this judgment, revised pay scales were given to those 23 employees in the year 1991 when the contempt proceedings were initiated against the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar of the University of Mysore. The benefits having been given to 23 employees of the University in compliance with the decision dated 21.6.1989 recorded by the learned Single Judge in WPs Nos. 21487-506 of 1982, it was expected that without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed, including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and papers which only waste public time." 13. 21487-506 of 1982, it was expected that without resorting to any of the methods the other employees identically placed, including the appellants, would have been given the same benefits, which would have avoided not only unnecessary litigation but also the movement of files and papers which only waste public time." 13. This Court, therefore, considers it proper to make an observation herein that as and when any individual writ petitioner whose writ petition is pending before this Court on the issue of equivalence of Madhyama with Matriculation leading to non-consideration of his case by the respondents, files a representation before them alongwith a copy of the present order, the respondents are obliged to consider the representation and pass reasoned and speaking order thereupon in accordance with law within a maximum period of two months from the date of its receipt/production alongwith a copy of this order, upon pain of answerability for inaction despite the present order.