Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR
Raghvendra Kumar Sharma Son of Krishna Mohan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
HARISH KUMAR, J.
1. Heard the parties.
2. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the University, the same is taken on record.
3. The petitioner was appointed against the post of M.A. Teacher in terms with an advertisement duly published in the newspaper by the College in question on 13.02.2013 inviting application from the eligible candidates for consideration of their cases for appointment against the teaching and non teaching posts in the concerned college.
4. Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundram, learned Advocate for the petitioner submitted that the materials available on record clearly reflects that in terms with the advertisement, the petitioner submitted his application for appointment against the post of M.A. Teacher and after proper verification of his qualification and eligibility, he was called upon for interview held on 24.03.2013. The petitioner participated in the interview for the aforesaid post which was conducted by the duly constituted Selection Committee and on being found suitable by the Selection Committee, the name of the petitioner has been recommended for his appointment on the post of MA Teacher. There was only one post of MA Teacher as has been adverti
Once a post is sanctioned, prior approval from the State Government is not necessary for appointment; eligibility and suitability can be scrutinized post-appointment.
A sanctioned post permits appointment without prior government approval; rejection of appointment was deemed arbitrary.
Appointments against sanctioned posts do not require prior approval from the State Government, allowing for post facto validation and regularization of service.
Section 57A(6) of the Bihar State Universities Act is inapplicable to teachers appointed after the stipulated date; University must process such appointments fairly.
The court held that the eligibility for consideration in teaching appointments is confined to those appointed before a specific cutoff date, and the petitioners, appointed later, do not qualify.
The court reinforced that salaries must be paid to teachers based on regularized appointments, rejecting any arbitrary withholding by the State as per established constitutional rights, regardless of....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
