Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1590 (JHR)

Uma Shankar Upadhyaya v. State of Jharkhand

2009-12-16

M.Y.EQBAL, R.R.PRASAD

body2009
Order Heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and with their consent this appeal is disposed of at the admission stage itself. 2. The appellants have challenged the impugned judgment passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) 48 of 2009. For better appreciation the impugned judgment dated 16.1.2009 is quoted hereinbelow:- The present writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:- (a) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondents to send the name of the petitioners of the Department of History of the aforesaid college to Jharkhand Academic Council for absorption and regularization of their services in the light of the fact that they are permanent teachers of the aforesaid college, whose names have not been sent to the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi so far; (b) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondents to take appropriate steps to facilitate the petitioners in the aforesaid college as lecturers in amicable atmosphere from which they are being continuously hindered, prevented and forcefully deprived from working in the college and performing their duties even after their repeated personal and written submissions and representations to the authorities concerned particularly to the Principal, the Secretary and the Chairman of the Governing Body of the aforesaid college though the petitioners have been regularly going to the college for performing their duties; (c) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondents for high power enquiry by respondent nos. 1 and 2 through Vigilance/CBI into the malfunctioning of the aforesaid college, whose G.B. and authorities have appointed some illegible (sic-ineligible) teachers, who are kith and kins and favorite of the authorities of the college, by violating the due process, rules and regulations of the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi and by preventing and trying to throw out the old founder teachers of the aforesaid college, which the petitioners are; (d) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondents to pay the petitioners. salary and other consequential benefits from which they have been deprived of; (e) For issuance of appropriate writ, order or direction upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 to take disciplinary actions against the erring authorities of the respondent no. 3 for its malfunctioning, vagaries, arbitrariness, mala fides violation of the fact and statutes, Government Rules and Jharkhand Academic Council Rules and Regulations. 1 and 2 to take disciplinary actions against the erring authorities of the respondent no. 3 for its malfunctioning, vagaries, arbitrariness, mala fides violation of the fact and statutes, Government Rules and Jharkhand Academic Council Rules and Regulations. After some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he is mainly pressing a prayer and rest of the prayer can be ignored. The main contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that they are confirmed and permanent teachers and thus entitled to regularization/absorption. However, he has not been able to justify it in claim as none of the documents on record shows that the petitioners were confirmed and permanent teachers and even the recommendations of the Bihar College Service Commission is of no consequence as on date. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstance of the case, I find no merit in this writ petition. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed but without any order as to costs. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submitted that all the documents in support of the case of the appellants were filed as Annexure with the writ petition which will sufficiently establish that the appointment of the appellants were approved but those documents have not been considered by the learned Single Judge. 4. Admittedly, the writ petition was disposed of on the first date without asking the State Counsel to controvert the statements and without considering the documents filed by the petitioner in support of their case. Moreover, the impugned order appears to be cryptic and no reasons have been assigned while dismissing the writ petition. 5. In our view, the matter needs to be heard afresh. We, therefore, allow this appeal and set aside the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and remand the matter back before the appropriate Bench for hearing afresh and for passing appropriate order in with accordance law. 6. It is made clear that we have not applied our mind with regard to merit of the appeal. Learned Single Judge will consider and decide the same.