Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 1043 (PAT)

Krishna Mohan Mishra v. State of Bihar

2018-07-12

ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY

body2018
JUDGMENT : ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY, J. 1. Yesterday the case was heard at length. Mr. S.S. Sundram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Sanskrit Shiksha Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') admitted before this Court that the petitioners were not made party before the Appellate Authority and adverse order was passed against these petitioners. 2. The petitioners in the present writ application are aggrieved by the decision of the Appellate Authority, namely, Special Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, who was exercising as Appellate Authority power, has set aside the decision of the Board, whereby the Board approved the services of the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are regularly working , as their services were approved by the Board and in appeal the decision of the Board was set aside the Special Director, Secondary Education, however, in the appeal they were not made party and the were not heard. 4. In view of the fact that the petitioners were not made party before the Appellate Authority and the order passed in favour of the petitioners was set aside, the Court has no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the Special Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, in Appeal No. 53 of 2013 dated 06.05.2014 to be a nullity in the eye of law. 5. Accordingly, the order passed by the Appellate Authority (Annexure-6) is quashed. The matter is remitted back to the Special Director, Secondary Education, Education Department to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after hearing these petitioners and the respondent no.5 herein within a period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. If, it is found that the petitioners are regularly working in the School after approval of the Board, then the respondent authorities are required to make payment of salary for the period, the petitioners have actually worked after approval of the Board, as the order passed by the Special Director, Secondary Education, Education Department in the peculiar facts and circumstances has been declared as nullity by this Court. 6. It goes without saying that the issue with regard to payment of salary after remand would abide by the final outcome of the appeal. 7. With the aforesaid, the writ application stands allowed.