Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 1829 (JHR)

Yagyanand Pathak v. The State of Jharkhand

2025-09-08

DEEPAK ROSHAN, RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

body2025
JUDGMENT : This Intra Court Appeal has been preferred by the writ petitioner-appellant against the order dated 18.10.2013 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(S) No. 3274 of 2006; whereby the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant has been dismissed by holding as under: “10. I find that though the petitioner has claimed that he was appointed on 10.01.1996, the writ petition was filed only on 21.06.2006 and thus, the petitioner allegedly continued in service for more than 10 years without salary. I am of the considered view that the alleged appointment of the petitioner was illegal. The conduct of the petitioner in approaching the court after a period of one decade, gives a clear indication that he was not legally appointed on the post as he has claimed in the present writ petition. Moreover, in view of the specific stand taken by the State of Jharkhand in the counter-affidavit that, the petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification and since the school in question was given minority status on 28.09.2007, I am of the considered view that the prayer of the petitioner cannot be granted. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on the case of " All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar " (supra) and an order passed by this court in W.P.(S) No. 5639 of 2004 dated 28.03.2007. I am of the view that the decisions relied on by the counsel for the petitioner are not at all related to the issue in the present case more particularly the effect of Recruitment Rules operating at the time when the appointment was sought to be approved. In " All Bihar Christian Schools Association v. State of Bihar " (supra), the issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court was the power of the managing committee of a school run by the minorities. In the present case such an issue is not involved. The matter regarding the approval of the appointment of the petitioner agitated by him in the present writ petition, was not an issue before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the said decision. In W.P. (S) No. 5639 of 2004, the facts pleaded are entirely different and therefore, it does not lend any help to the case of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner in the writ application has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) For commanding upon the respondents concern especially respondent no. In W.P. (S) No. 5639 of 2004, the facts pleaded are entirely different and therefore, it does not lend any help to the case of the petitioner.” 2. The petitioner in the writ application has prayed for the following reliefs: “(i) For commanding upon the respondents concern especially respondent no. 4 for the payment of arrear of salary due since January, 1996 immediately and forthwith and (ii) For further direction to the respondents to approve the appointment of the petitioner who has been appointed by the Managing Committee of G.E.L. High School, Kochedega against sanctioned post on 06.01.1996. (iii) To quash the letter no. 2610 dated 10.05.2010 issued under the signature of the Director (Secondary Education) Jharkhand, Ranchi as well as letter no. 370 dated 02.02.2011, issued under the signature of the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand and to grant approval of his appointment from the date of passing of his teachers training from recognised university and date of his appointment.” 3. Briefly stated, as it appears from the material available on record that the writ petitioner-appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 10.01.1996 pursuant to a decision taken by the governing body of the school dated 05.01.1996. It has been claimed by the appellant that the school was recognized in the year 1979 itself and there were 09 approved posts. Pursuant to an advertisement dated 15.12.1995, the appellant was appointed as Assistant Teacher. Thereafter, the matter of approval of appointment of the appellant remained pending with the State Authorities and as per the appellant, he was not paid salary. Forced with the said action of the concerned respondent, the writ petitioner-appellant filled the writ application on 21.06.2006. Since the service of the writ petitioner-appellant was not approved pursuant to a decision taken on 28.09.2007; the said decision was also impugned by filing interlocutory application which was allowed by the learned writ Court on 16.01.2012. 4. It appears from the record that a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the respondents have taken specific stand as under : “..... the school in which the petitioner was allegedly appointed as Assistant Teacher was not recognised and in fact this was recognised as a minority institution only on 28.09.2007. 4. It appears from the record that a counter affidavit has been filed wherein the respondents have taken specific stand as under : “..... the school in which the petitioner was allegedly appointed as Assistant Teacher was not recognised and in fact this was recognised as a minority institution only on 28.09.2007. A further plea has been taken that on 05.11.2004 a notification was issued under which the necessary eligibility criteria for appointment as a secondary school teacher was prescribed and as the petitioner does not possess the qualification, his service was not recognised and thus, the prayer of the petitioner has been resisted by the respondent-State of Jharkhand.” 5. The contention of the writ petitioner-appellant before us is that in the year 2004 the Recruitment Rules came into existence after creation of State of Jharkhand and, therefore, the rules which were applicable at the time of appointment of the petitioner would be applicable in the case of the petitioner while adjudging the eligibility for appointment of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher. Learned counsel for the writ petitioner- appellant has contended that the said issue has not been decided by the learned writ Court. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that the learned writ Court has given a specific finding that the petitioner was appointed on 10.01.1996 and the writ application was filed only on 21.06.2006 and the petitioner remained in service without any salary for more than 10 years. It was further observed by the learned writ Court that the conduct of the writ petitioner in approaching the Court after a period of one decade gives a clear indication that he was not legally appointed on the post. Learned writ Court has also given a specific finding that as per the stand in the counter-affidavit, petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification since the school in question was given minority status on 28.09.2007. 7. Learned writ Court has also given a specific finding that as per the stand in the counter-affidavit, petitioner does not possess the minimum educational qualification since the school in question was given minority status on 28.09.2007. 7. It further transpires that while dismissing the writ application, the learned writ Court has also distinguished the judgment cited by the petitioner i.e. the judgment of “All Bihar Chirstian Schools Association v. State of Bihar” , [ AIR 1988 SC 305 ] by holding that in the said case the issue before the Hon’ble Apex Court was the power of Managing Committee of a School run by the minorities; whereas in the case of the petitioner the issue is different. 8. We do not find any error in the impugned order dated 18.10.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No.3274 of 2006; especially on the ground that the writ petitioner-appellant has not denied either before the learned writ Court or before us, the specific stand taken by the respondents that the writ petitioner-appellant does not possess the minimum educational qualification and the school was given minority status on 28.09.2007; as such, the case of the petitioner shall be governed by the existing notification at the time when the school was given minority status on 28.09.2007. It is also evident that the writ petitioner-appellant has acquired B.Ed. degree in III rd division. 9. Further, the claim of the writ petitioner-appellant for payment of salary from 10.01.1996 is also not sustainable, inasmuch as, admittedly; he had approached this Court after a decade on 21.06.2006. The Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments has observed that the writ should not be entertained ignoring the delay and latches. Reference in this regard may be made to the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of “ Chairman/Managing Director, U.P. Power Corpn. Ltd. v. Ram Gopal ” , [ (2021) 13 SCC 225 ] . For brevity, relevant paragraph is extracted hereinbelow: “11. Whilst it is true that limitation does not strictly apply to proceedings under Articles 32 or 226 of the Constitution, nevertheless, such rights cannot be enforced after an unreasonable lapse of time. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Consideration of unexplained delays and inordinate laches would always be relevant in writ actions, and the writ courts naturally ought to be reluctant in exercising their discretionary jurisdiction to protect those who have slept over wrongs and allowed illegalities to fester. Fence-sitters cannot be allowed to barge into courts and cry for their rights at their convenience, and vigilant citizens ought not to be treated alike with mere opportunists. On multiple occasions, it has been restated that there are implicit limitations of time within which writ remedies can be enforced. In S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala [S.S. Balu v. State of Kerala, (2009) 2 SCC 479 : (2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 388] , this Court observed thus : (SCC p. 485, para 17) “17. It is also well-settled principle of law that “delay defeats equity”. … It is now a trite law that where the writ petitioner approaches the High Court after a long delay, reliefs prayed for may be denied to them on the ground of delay and laches irrespective of the fact that they are similarly situated to the other candidates who obtain the benefit of the judgment.” Emphasis Supplied 10. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, we don’t find any error so as to interfere with the order passed by the Leaned Writ Court. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to cost. Pending I.A., if any, also stands closed.