Back
2010 Supreme(Pat) 2206
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PATNA
NAVANITI PD. SINGH, J.
LALITESHWAR MISHRA "LALITESH” S/O SHRI ANIRUDDHA MISHRA & ORS. Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & ORS.
SATYA NARAIN THAKUR S/O LATE MAHADEO THAKUR & ORS.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & ORS.
KIRAN PRAKASH GUPTA, S/O LATE DINESH CHANDRA GUPTA & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
SUDHIR KUMAR JHA S/O LATE UPENDRA JHA & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-THE COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, MAIN SECRETARIAT PATNA & Ors.
BUCHESHWAR MANDAL S/O ADHIK LAL SINGH & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-THE COMMISSIONER, DEPTT. OF FINANCE, GOVT. OF BIHAR, MAIN SECRETARIAT PATNA & Ors.
KESHAV RAI S/O LATE RAM BILAS RAI & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT. GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
UMESH PRASAD S/O LATE RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
JAI RAM SINGH, SON OF LATE GOVIND SINGH & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
JIBAY NARAYAN MISHRA S/O LATE SUKHDEO MISHRA & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT.OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
ASHOK KUMAR SINGH S/O SRI HARI NARAYAN SINGH R/O SAARI, P.O.- SAARI, P.S.- WARIS NAGAR, DISTT.- SAMASTIPUR
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
RAJ KISHORE RAY S/O LATE CHULHAI RAY R/O VILL +P.O.MAHADEO PATTI, P.S. PARIHAR, DISTT-SITAMARHI & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
DR.RAM BINOD PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RAM LAKHAN SINGH & Anr.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.
BIRENDRA KUMAR MISHRA S/O SRI JAGDISH MISHRA & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.
ABDUS SALAM S/O LATE MD. YASIN KHAN & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.
DR. RAKESH KUMAR SINGH S/O SHRI BISHWANATH PRASAD SINGH & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPTT., GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
BINOD KUMAR S/O SRI SHAMBHU SARAN SINGH & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.
JAWED KARIM KHAN S/O LATE JAMALUDDIN KHAN & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.
AKHAURI BIJAY PRAKASH SINHA S/O LATE AKHAURI BIRENDRA PRAKASH SINHA & Anr.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER & Ors.
DR. RAJ KISHORE PRASAD SINGH, SON OF LATE RABINDRA NATH SINGH & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.
DR. DEVENDRA KUMAR S/O LATE AMRIT PRASAD & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION) DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
DR. AJOY KUMAR, SON OF SRI RAM AUTAR PRASAD & Anr.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
SUSHIL KUMAR OJHA, S/O LATE BABU NAND OJHA & Ors.
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY , HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (HIGHER EDUCATION), GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA & Ors.
CWJC No. 1377, 9321, 9599, 9650, 1794, 4327, 11289, 13910, 11356, 13333, 12557, 14013, 2771, 2002, 3090, 5227, 6474, 7729, 14360, 7094, 8192, 8193 of 2010
Decided on: 21.09.2010
For the petitioner:Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with M/s Abhinav Srivastava, Bal Mukund Pd Sinha, Anil Kumar, Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Anshuman, Ramanuj Tiwary, Purushottam Kr Jha, Sanjay Kumar, Dipak Kumar, Madhuresh Singh, Sharad Kumar Sinha, Subhas Chandra Jha, Amit Kumar Anand, Sunil Kumar Singh, Sitesh Chandra Mitra, Advocates
For the State: M/s Sanjay Kumar No 2, GP 15, Shail Kumari, SC 23, Nilu Agrawal, GA X and Sanjay Kumar @ Sanju, AC to GA X.
For the Universities :M/s Vinay Kirti Singh, Shivendra Kishore, Anil Singh, Ajay Behari Sinha, Yugal Kishore, Harendra Kumar Tiwari, Pushkar Narayan Shahi and Sarvesh Kumar Singh, Advocates
The main legal point established in the judgment is the entitlement of re-designated Demonstrators as Teachers and the inconsistency of subsequent Circulars with the judicial pronouncements and the Cabinet decision.
Headnote:
Lab Assistant - Dispute over re-designation as Demonstrator - Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 - Section 2 (v) - The court discussed the interpretation of the judicial pronouncements and the Cabinet decision, emphasizing the rights and entitlements of the re-designated Demonstrators as Teachers and the impact of subsequent Circulars on their promotional avenues.
Fact of the Case:
The dispute arose from the re-designation of Lab Assistant/Lab Technician/Lab Incharge/Lab Instructor as Demonstrator following a decision by the State Cabinet. The subsequent Circular dated 18.12.2008 created controversy by disentitling them from being treated as Teachers, affecting their promotional opportunities and remuneration.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the re-designated Demonstrators were entitled to the benefits of Demonstrators from the date of acquiring the necessary academic qualification, and their promotional avenues as Teachers were consistent with the judicial pronouncements and the Cabinet decision.
Issues: Interpretation of judicial pronouncements, compliance with the Cabinet decision, and the entitlement of re-designated Demonstrators as Teachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the re-designated Demonstrators were entitled to promotional avenues as Teachers and the subsequent Circular disentitling them from being treated as Teachers was inconsistent with the judicial pronouncements and the Cabinet decision.
Final Decision: All the writ applications were allowed, and the orders of the State and Universities following the impugned Circular were quashed.
There being a common question involved in all these writ applications, counter affidavits and rejoinders having been filed, all necessary parties having appeared, with consent, the cases were taken up for disposal at this stage itself.
2. The dispute relates to Lab Assistant/Lab Technician/Lab Incharge/Lab Instructor working in various Universities established under and controlled by the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976. In short, the dispute arises from a decision taken by the State Cabinet on 06.06.2006 whereby following judicial pronouncements, the State Cabinet decided to re-designate the Lab Assistant/Lab Technician/Lab Incharge/Lab Instructor as Demonstrator. This is being effectively undone by the impugned Circular, hence the writ petitions. The significance of this decision is that Lab Assistant/Lab Technician/ Lab Incharge/Lab Instructor is a non-teaching post whereas Demonstrator is a teaching post as defined by Section 2 (v) of the Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 which is quoted hereunder :-
“Section 2 (v) … … …
“Teacher” includes Principal, University Professor, College Professor, Reader, Lecturer, Demonstrator and other person imparting instruction in department, college or institute maintained by the University ;”
3. Once these people became Demonstrators, Demonstrator being Teacher, they would get the promotional opportunities as substantial number of Lab Assistant/Lab Technician/Lab Incharge/Lab Instructor were Doctorate degree holders though the basic qualification was only Graduation and Intermediate in some cases.
4. It is pursuant to this Cabinet decision dated 06.06.2006, which is not disputed, that the Communication No 1115 dated 14.06.2006 was issued by the Department of Human Resources Development (Higher Education) (Annexure-1 to the first writ petition). This circular clearly states about the decision of the State Government. It clearly states that the Government has taken a conscious decision that the Lab Assistant/Lab Technician/Lab Incharge/Lab Instructor, on acquiring requisite academic qualification, being re-designated as Demonstrator, the post of Demonstrator would continue till their superannuation and upon their superannuation, the post of Demonstrator would stand surrendered. In paragraph-3 of the Circular, it was clearly stated that pursuant to re-designation of these persons as Demonstrators, they would be entitled to all benefits and promotional rights of the Demonstrator. There was no ambiguity in the said communication.
5. This Circular was clarified immediately on 01.08.2006 (Annexure-2) by the Department. The Department now clarified that to the extent of persons, who were required to be re-designated as Demonstrators in different Colleges, the post of Demonstrator would be deemed to be sanctioned for the period it is occupied by the said re-designated persons whereafter the post would cease. It further clarified that the entitlement to be re-designated as Demonstrator would be from the date they acquired the necessary academic qualification to be designated as Demonstrator. I may observe here that this was so because, as noted above, for some post, the initial qualification was Intermediate but the minimum qualification for a Demonstrator was Graduation and for being promoted to Lecturer, it was Post Graduate with certain minimum percentage of marks that was required. Thus, the clarification that upon acquiring requisite qualification, they would be re-designated as Demonstrators and the benefits would arise from the date they acquire the qualification. This is Memo No 1456 dated 01.08.2006 (Annexure-2). The first writ petition deals with Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur University, the facts of which are representative and referred to by this Court.
6. The University then, pursuant to the said Government Circulars, conducted an exercise of evaluating the academic qualification of such Lab Assistant/Lab Technician/Lab Incharge/Lab Instructor for the purposes of re-designating them as Dem
