SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Pat) 428

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Surendra Prasad Yadav S/o Ram Prasad Yadav – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 16953 of 2022
Decided On : 17-01-2023

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Petitioners: Basant Kumar Choudhary, Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Nidhi Kumari.
For the Respondents: Subhash Chandra Mishra, Rakesh Prashant.

The importance of complying with judicial orders and the consequences of non-compliance.

Headnote:

Appointment - District Programme Officer's Order - The Bihar State Teaching Institutions Teachers and Employees (Disputes Redressal and Appeal) Rules, 2020 - 2008 Selection Process, 2012 Selections - Right to Information Act - State Appellate Authority's Order

Fact of the Case:

The petitioners challenged the order of the District Programme Officer canceling their appointment as Block Teachers. The State Appellate Authority had directed the Block Employment Unit to consider the petitioners' case against unfilled vacancies. The District Programme Officer issued an order restraining the Employment Unit from continuing the petitioners' services, citing the absence of vacancies after the 2008 recruitment process.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the District Programme Officer's order was vitiated and quashed it, noting that the Employment Unit was empowered to consider the petitioners' case against unfilled vacancies. The court also observed that the District Programme Officer had no authority to override the State Appellate Authority's order and that the order was a direct violation of the State Appellate Authority's judicial order.

Issues: The issues revolved around the authority of the District Programme Officer to cancel the petitioners' appointment, the validity of the State Appellate Authority's order, and the interpretation of the 2008 selection process and 2012 selections.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the District Programme Officer's order was a direct violation of the State Appellate Authority's order and that the Employment Unit was empowered to consider the petitioners' case against unfilled vacancies. The court also emphasized the importance of complying with judicial orders and the consequences of non-compliance.

Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the petitioners were allowed to continue in their posts. The court left it open for the State Appellate Authority to take appropriate action against the District Programme Officer.

JUDGMENT :

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.

1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition assailing the order passed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria dated 01.11.2022, whereby the appointment of the petitioners have been canceled as a Block Teacher with immediate effect directing the Employment Unit not to allow the petitioners to perform their duties.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners had preferred appeal before the State Appellate Authority challenging the legality of an order passed on 15.12.2017 by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, whereby the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority had refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the post had now to be treated as vacancies under the new selection and, therefore, the post cannot be filled as there was no vacancy available. The State Appellate Authority has noticed that there were several posts in different categories existing for recruitment and a document in this regard had been produced under the Right to Information Act. As the litigation was continuing against these posts. In view thereof, the State Appellate Authority disposed of the appeals with direction to the Block Employment Unit, Palasi to consider the case of the appellants afresh in accordance with law against those vacancies. And, it further observed that if the Employment Unit of the concerned Block decides to take steps for employment/engagement in the categories to which the appellants belong against the unfilled vacancies if any, the Respondent Employment Unit shall consider the case of the appellants in accordance with law.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a meeting was held of the Employment Unit on 24th May 2018 and it was decided to proceed further with the employment process against the unfilled vacancies. And in this regard, the Block Education Officer, who was asked to make available the details relating to the vacant post.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to Annexure 7, a document received under R.T.I. dated 17.05.2018 which was relied upon by the State Appellate Authority wherein, it is mentioned that points from 100 to 124, there were 12 posts lying vacant on account of the complaints/disputes pending in the Court.

5. The appointment was thereafter, offered to the petitioners on 24th May, 2018 and since then, the petitioners have been continuously performing their duties. The petitioners thereafter, filed writ petition before this Court as their salary was not being released. The cases were heard together with other similar matters by this Court and a general direction was issued to release the salary of all the teachers who are working.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria has issued an order on 01.11.2022 directing that the amount of salary be released up to August 2022 of the petitioners and thereafter, it restrained the Employment Unit to continue the services of the petitioners and further warning was issued that if the appointments are cancelled, their salary and accountability shall wholly rest with the Employment Unit and the Block Education Officer, Palasi. In the said order, it was also stated that all the vacancies after the recruitment process of 2008 was over, got absorbed in the recruitment year 2012 and thereafter, in recruitment year 2014 and therefore, there was no vacancy available on which the petitioners could have been appointed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said aspect was already dealt with by the State Appellate Authority and the District Programme Officer (Establishment) had no authority to override the observations of the State Appellate Authority and take a different view.

8. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2022, stayed the operation of the order passed by the District Programme Offic

    Click Here to Read the rest of this document
    1
    2
    3
    4
    5
    6
    7
    8
    9
    10
    11
    SupremeToday Portrait Ad
    supreme today icon
    logo-black

    An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

    Please visit our Training & Support
    Center or Contact Us for assistance

    qr

    Scan Me!

    India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

    For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

    whatsapp-icon Back to top