ORAL JUDGMENT

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)

Date : 20-11-2024 The present Letters Patent Appeal has been filed under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the Patna High Court against the order dated 21.12.2019 passed by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7964 of 2010, whereby the learned single Judge has partly allowed the petition filed by the present appellant/original petitioner.

2. Heard Mr. Abdul Mannan Khan, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. S. S. Tiwary, learned A.C. to A.A.G.-

15 for the respondent Nos. 1 to 7.

3. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that in the present proceeding respondent No. 8 is the concerned Appellate Tribunal whereas respondent No.9 is the Chief Executive Officer of concerned Zila Parishad. In fact, the appellant/petitioner challenged the order passed by respondent No. 9 by filing an appeal before respondent No.8 (Appellate Tribunal). It is also submitted that the learned single Judge has partly allowed the petition wherein it has been observed that the order passed by the Appellate Tribunal (respondent No.8) is set aside and consequences of setting aside the order of the Tribunal shall follow. It is contended that respondent No.9 has not challenged the order passed by the learned single Judge by filing a separate appeal and thereby respondent No.9 has accepted the order passed by the learned single Judge. Hence, in the present proceeding, presence of respondent Nos. 8 and 9 is not required.

4. Now, learned counsel for the appellant/original petitioner has submitted the case of the appellant on merit. It is contended that the appellant/original petitioner challenged the order dated 08.08.2009 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Khagaria, in Appeal Case No. 323 of 2009. While filing the captioned writ petition before this Court, the grievance in the petition was that the appointment of the petitioner as an Assistant Teacher was held to be invalid on the ground that the qualification of 'Sahitya Alankar' acquired by the petitioner from Hindi Vidyapeet, Deoghar, was not an equivalent qualification to the requisite qualification for the said post. It is further contended that the learned single Judge placed reliance upon the order dated 10.07.2019 (the correct date of the order is 18.07.2019) passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Vs. the State of Bihar and Others (in CWJC No. 5129 of 2009) and analogous cases and, thereafter, quashed and set aside the order dated 08.08.2009 passed in Appeal Case No. 323 of 2009 rendered by the concerned Appellate Tribunal. It is further submitted that, though the learned single Judge has observed that the consequences of the setting aside of the said order shall follow, without assigning any reason, the learned single Judge denied the back-wages to the petitioner and, therefore, to the extent of denial of back-wages to the petitioner, the present appeal has been filed.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, has referred the order dated 18.07.2019 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) (in CWJC No. 5129 of 2009) and, thereafter, submitted that in the said cases, the Division Bench has specifically directed the concerned authority to give all consequential benefits. Thus, learned counsel urges that the impugned order passed by the learned single Judge, by which back-wages has been denied to the appellant/original petitioner, be set aside and thereby direction be issued to the respondent authorities to grant consequential benefits.

6. On the other hand, learned A.C. to A.A.G. 15, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 7, would submit that the learned single Judge has quashed and set aside the order of the Appellate Tribunal. However, as the appellant/petitioner is not entitled for the back-wages, the same has not been granted to him. Thereby, the learned single Judge has not committed any error while denying the b