Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 832 (PAT)

Prafull Chandra Singh v. State of Bihar

2014-08-01

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH, J.:–There is not much dispute involved in the present writ application. 2. I have heard at length Mr Tej Bahadur Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner as well as Mr. Jai Shankar Barnwal, learned Government Advocate no.5 appearing on behalf of the respondent-State of Bihar. 3. Claiming that the petitioner was initially appointed as Assistant Teacher in Sangeet duly under a decision of the Managing Committee of Smt. Lalita Devi Project Girls High School, Darauli in the District of Siwan and an appointment letter to this effect was issued on 15.11.1985 pursuant to which he joined on 16.11.1985; the petitioner seeks a direction from this Court to regularize/absorb his services in terms of the decision of the State Government said to have been taken in May, 2005 issued vide memo no. 189P dated 28.5.2012. It is contended that by the said Government decision, services of 38 teachers appointed in Project High School by the Managing Committee in the year 1984-85, were recognized. Out of these 38 teachers, 26 were in Home Science, 7 in Music, 4 in Commerce and one in Bengla. Referring to the said Annexure-3, specific case of the petitioner that his name was included in the Annexure attached to it which is the part of the Government decision communicated vide Memo No. 189P dated 28.5.2012 arrived at on the basis of the records. In the Report of three Men Committee it was found that petitioner’s name was there in the Project report as per the staffing pattern sanctioned by the Cabinet, they were appointed prior to 1.1.1989, fulfilled the conditions of minimum and maximum age and possessed required educational qualification and training. It has been contended that the list enclosed with the said decision of the Cabinet contains only such names of teachers who fulfilled the conditions stipulated in paragraph 4 of the Cabinet decision issued vide memo no. 189P dated 28.5.2012. 4. It is also specific case of the petitioner that almost all persons whose names figured in the enclosure annexed along with the said decision of the State Government as contained in Annexure-3 have been absorbed as Assistant Teachers in Project School but the petitioner has not be absorbed. 189P dated 28.5.2012. 4. It is also specific case of the petitioner that almost all persons whose names figured in the enclosure annexed along with the said decision of the State Government as contained in Annexure-3 have been absorbed as Assistant Teachers in Project School but the petitioner has not be absorbed. It is the petitioner’s case that he has been singled out from amongst the candidates whose names figured in the approved list as contained in the enclosure to the said Government decision dated 28.5.2012. 5. Documents have been brought on record in support of the fact that other persons similarly situated have been absorbed in the light of the State Government decision dated 28.5.2012 as contained in Annexure-3. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner that there is no reason or any fact to distinguish the petitioner’s case. It has been contended that admittedly, in the school in question, there are 9 posts sanctioned against which 8 are presently working and the petitioner can be adjusted against 9th post. By way of supplementary affidavit filed today on behalf of the petitioner, it has been stated that the petitioner was at serial no.8 among the teacher and according to him even if the Headmaster is posted in the School, the petitioner can either be adjusted against 9th post or he can be adjusted in some other school in terms of the Government decision as contained in the letter No. 142 dated 4.2.1989 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 6. Mr. Barnwal, learned Government Advocate No.5 appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar on the other hand, opposed the prayer and has contended referring to the counter affidavit that in the school in question the services of 8 Assistant Teachers have already been approved vide memo no.389 dated 24.6.2008 and all the 8 sanctioned posts of Assistant Teachers have already been filled up by approving the services of eligible teachers. Accordingly, according to him the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. He submits that out 9 posts of teachers sanctioned in a Project School, one is to be filled up by a Headmaster and there are already 8 teachers working in the school in question. Accordingly, according to him the claim of the petitioner has rightly been rejected. He submits that out 9 posts of teachers sanctioned in a Project School, one is to be filled up by a Headmaster and there are already 8 teachers working in the school in question. He has however, not disputed the fact that the State Government may consider the petitioner’s case in the light of the decision of the Government as contained in letter dated 28.5.2012. 7. Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has pointed out that presence of two teachers in one subject of Biology in the same school has no apparent explanation. He further contends that the Government is releasing fund for 38 teachers including this petitioner, whereas only 37 teachers are in fact working. 8. Be that it may, in the facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to dispose of the writ application with the following directions:— (1) I direct the Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna to act strictly in accordance with Memo no. 185P dated 28.5.2012 issued under the signature of the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar to the extent it relates to the petitioner. The Director Secondary Education will be obliged to take into account the list of approved teachers enclosed alongwith the said memo No. 185P dated 28.5.2012. (2) If the Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar is of the view that the petitioner cannot be adjusted in Smt. Lalita Devi Project Girls High School, Darauli, Siwan because of absence of vacancy, he will be required to apply the guidelines issued by the State Government vide letter No. 142 dated 4.2.1989 issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar with particular reference to Sub-Clause (vii). (3) The Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna will be required to take a final decision in this regard within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order which must be speaking and reasoned one. 9. Needless to say that consequence of any decision to be taken by the Director Secondary Education, Government of Bihar in the light of the present order shall follow. 10. This writ application is disposed of accordingly. ?