Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 2149
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
MRIDULA MISHRA, J.
Manju Chaudhary, wife of Late Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary - Petitioner
Versus
Bhupendra Narayan Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura through the Registrar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9440 of 2009
Decided on: 19.10.2011
For the Petitioner: Mr. S.B.K. Mangalam, Adv.
For the University: Mr. B.K. Jha, Sr. Adv., Mr. Abhay Kumar, Adv.
For Respondent No. 5: Mr. Jitendra Singh, Sr. Adv., Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur, Adv., Mr. Shankar Kumar Thakur, Adv.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the position of sanctioned and recommended posts as indicated in the Justice Agrawal Commission's Report and the finding recorded in the Supreme Court judgment is final and cannot be questioned by any forum.
Headnote:
Justice Agrawal Commission's Report - Absorption of Lecturer - Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 - Section 4(1)(14), Evidence Act, Supreme Court Judgment 2005 (1) PLJR 464 - Annexure- IIA, IIB, IV-A - The court discussed the Justice Agrawal Commission's Report and the Supreme Court judgment, emphasizing that the position of sanctioned and recommended posts as indicated in the report and the finding recorded in the judgment is final and cannot be questioned by any forum. The court highlighted that no correction can be made subsequent to the judgment except for typographical errors, and the position of sanctioned/recommended posts will remain the same as per the Apex Court Judgment based on the report.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, widow of a lecturer, sought payment of arrears of salary and compassionate appointment for her deceased husband. The university had canceled the notification of regularization issued in favor of the petitioner's husband against the recommended post in the Department of Zoology.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the university had no reason to cancel the notifications and directed the university to make payment of difference of arrears of salary to the petitioner's late husband. The court also directed the university to consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the law.
Issues: The issues involved the cancellation of notifications of regularization, entitlement to arrears of salary, and the eligibility for compassionate appointment.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the position of sanctioned and recommended posts as indicated in the Justice Agrawal Commission's Report and the finding recorded in the Supreme Court judgment is final and cannot be questioned. The court also emphasized that the petitioner became eligible for claiming compassionate appointment when the legal requirement was fulfilled.
Final Decision: The court directed the university to make payment of difference of arrears of salary to the petitioner's late husband and consider the petitioner's application for compassionate appointment in accordance with the law.
1. Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State, counsels, representing B. N. Mandal University as well as Respondent No. 5.
2. Petitioner before this Court is the widow of Shri Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary, who was a Lecturer in K. B. Jha College, Katihar. Husband of the petitioner was appointed as Lecturer in Zoology on 05.07.1986 and worked till 18.11.1997. He became traceless since 18.11.1997 and after seven year, in terms of section 108 of the Evidence Act, he is deemed to be dead.
3. Relief prayed by the petitioner is two fold. First to direct the respondents for payment of differential amount of arrears of salary of the petitioner’s deceased husband for the period 05.07.1986 to 18.11.1997, treating him absorbed on the post of Lecturer in Zoology against the recommended post and also for a direction to the Respondents to consider petitioner’s case for compassionate appointment.
4. Grievance of the petitioner is that as per the decision of the Supreme Court in 2005 (1) PLJR 464 (SC), name of petitioner’s husband being in Annexure- IIA, IIB and Annexure- IV-A of Justice Agrawal Commission's Report, the syndicate had decided to absorb services of her husband, Ranjit Kumar Chaudhary against the recommended post in the Department of Zoology. As per the recommendation of the Syndicate, the University had issued notification, contained in Memo No. 555, dated 08.02.2005 and services of her husband was regularized as provided under section 4(1)(14) of Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. The Syndicate resolved to cancel the notification of regularization issued in favour of her late husband against first recommended post and a notification was issued on 17.01.2006, whereby Gauri Kant Jha, Respondent No. 5 was absorbed as Lecturer with effect from 05.07.1986. This notification had been issued for the same period, for which earlier notification for absorption had been issued in favour of petitioner’s late husband against first recommended post. By the subsequent notification, Respondent No. 5 has been absorbed against second recommended post for the same period, but for no reason, the notification of absorption with respect to petitioner’s husband has been cancelled.
5. Submissions have been made by the petitioner’s counsel, the counsel representing Respondent No. 5, the University and the State.
6. Considering their submissions, what I find that all parties are relying on Justice Agrawal Commission's Report Annexure- IIA, IIB and Annexure- IV-A as well as the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 2005 (1) PLJR 464 (State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.). They all have submitted that the position of sanctioned and recommended post as indicated in Justice Agrawal Commission's Report and the finding recorded in Apex Court Judgment reported in 2005 (1) PLJR 464 (State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.), is final and it can not be questioned by any Court, Tribunal or authority, including the High Court.
7. In support of this contention, the counsel, representing Respondent No. 5 has placed reliance on different decisions of Supreme Court. In these Judgments, there is specific finding that issue decided by the Apex Court and the finding recorded by the Supreme Court, neither can be reopened, altered or scrutinized by any forum, including the High Court. Considering the finding recorded in these judgments, the status of sanctioned as well as recommended post mentioned in Justice Agrawal Commission's Report relying upon which the Supreme Court has passed judgment reported in 2005 (1) PLJR 464 (State of Bihar & Ors. Versus Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K.) can not be changed, modified or interpreted, in any other manner, than it has been recorded in Justice Agrawal Commission's Report and relied upon by the Apex Court. Annexure- IA of Justice Agrawal Commission's Report relates to sanctioned post of Teachers in different Colleges. In K. B. Jha College, Katihar, as per Annexure- IA in the Department of Zoology
