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

2024 Supreme(Pat) 757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN, J.
Vishnudeo Prasad Singh, S/o. Late Lattar Singh - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Dept. of Education, Govt. of Bihar and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4619 of 2021
Decided On : 29-08-2024

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioner: Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram.
For the Respondents: Mr. Prabhakar Jha, Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, Mr. Deepak Kumar.

Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.

Headnote:(A) Bihar State Universities Act, 1976 - Sections 10(6) and 35 - Writ petition for regularization of service and payment of salary - Petitioner appointed as Clerk in 1978, claim rejected by State citing illegal appointment without prior sanction - Court held that appointments against sanctioned posts need not require prior approval, allowing regularization. (Paras 27, 28)

(B) Regularization - The court emphasized that appointments made against sanctioned posts should be validated post facto, ensuring compliance with eligibility and qualifications. (Paras 26, 27)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in 1978, but his salary was denied due to alleged illegal appointment without prior sanction from the State Government. The petitioner sought regularization of his service after years of service.

Findings of Court:
The court set aside the State's memo rejecting the petitioner's claim and directed the regularization of his service, granting all consequential benefits from the date of initial appointment.

Issues: The main issues included the legality of the petitioner's appointment and the requirement of prior sanction for appointments against sanctioned posts.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that appointments made against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation of such appointments.

Result: Writ application allowed.

JUDGMENT :

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J.)

Heard Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Prabhakar Jha, GP-27 appearing on behalf of the State as well as Mr. Deepak Kumar appearing on behalf of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (hereinafter referred to as the “University’).

2. Petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs:-

    (i) For quashing of memo no.1449 dated 07.09.2020, issued by the Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna under the signature of Special Secretary, Education Department whereby and whereunder claim of the petitioner for payment of salary after granting approval to the service of the petitioner, who was appointed and working as a Clerk since 15.10.1978 in Satya Narayan Sanskrit College (hereinafter referred to as the “College”), an affiliated unit of Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University (hereinafter referred to as “University”) has been declined by the State respondents citing reasons that the appointment of the petitioner has been made contrary to the prescribed provisions of the Bihar State Universities Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’).

    (ii) For holding that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Clerk on 15.10.1978 in the aforesaid College was lawful and in accordance with the concerned provisions of the Act.

    (iii) For payments of arrears as well as current salary to the petitioner.

    (iv) For any other consequential relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found entitled to.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the case at length is that, petitioner was appointed by the Governing Body of the college on the post of Second Clerk on 05.10.1978, after a decision taken by the Governing body of the said college issued under the signature of the Secretary of the Governing body. Pursuant to the aforesaid appointment, petitioner submitted his joining on 15.10.1978 on the post of Second Clerk to the Principal of the College.

4. That on the request of the Governing body of the college, appointment of the petitioner along with others was approved provisionally by the University vide its letter no.190/82 dated 16.07.1982 issued under the signature of the Registrar of the University. The University decided to make adhoc payment to the petitioner and others from September 1987 till further order vide letter no.1084/88 dated 08.02.1988 issued under the signature of the Registrar of the University.

5. The payment of salary to the petitioner has been made by the University from September, 1987 to 1999 and from March, 2008 to 2011.

5. He further submitted that the similarly situated persons as well as Karamchari Mahasangh of the said University filed a batch of writ applications. Among all the writ application, leading case is CWJC No.9222/1991 reported in 2003 (3) PLJR 749 (Annexure-7 of the writ petition). The Court disposed of the aforesaid writ application by its order dated 25.06.2003 with a direction to the University to submit the de-tails of all the concerned persons, to the state authorities which was directed to be scrutinized at the level of the State Government within a period of four months.

6. In compliance of the aforesaid direction, the State authorities took a decision to regularize the service of 33 persons including one Aditya Nath Jha who has been appointed in the same college to the post of Assistant Librarian on 01.04.1981 (after about three years of petitioner’s appointment).

7. The petitioner, thereafter, moved before this Court claiming similar relief in C.W.J.C. No.13922 of 2008 (Annex-ure-9) which was disposed of by this Court with direction to the State Government authorities to take appropriate decision within one month from the date of receipt of representation.

7. In light of the aforesaid direction, the University issued an office order dated 25.02.2011, started the payment of salary to the petitioner and other similarly situated persons (Annex-ure-11). Thereafter, when the payment of sal

    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