In this letters patent appeal, the appellants contested the single judge's finding that the termination of the respondent-petitioner was non-est. The court held there was no distinction between the instant case and the cited precedent, dismissing the appeal.
The appeal was rejected and the single judge's order was affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.1020 of 2004 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5759 of 1999
======================================================
... ... Respondents- Appellant/s
Versus
Krishna Chandar Sah, son of Sri Jamadar Sah, resident of village-Kurwa Mathian Biashnupur Brit, P.S. Chanpatia, District-West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner-Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Dev Kumar Pandey, AC to GP-2 For the Respondent/s : Mr. L.B.Singh, Advocate Mr. Jai Prakash Singh, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
12 06-02-2019
Heard Shri Dev Kumar Pandey, learned Assisting Counsel to Government Pleader-2, who, appearing on behalf of the State of Bihar, contends that there is a distinction between the facts of the case of the respondent-petitioner herein and that which was involved in the case of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary. That was subject matter of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5003 of 1999.
The dispute relates to the continuance or otherwise of the respondent-petitioner as a Class IV employee. The learned Single Judge found that the termination of the respondentpetitioner pursuant to the orders of the Director was non-est and
Patna High Court LPA No.1020 of 2004(12) dt.06-02-2019 2/2
without jurisdiction keeping in view the orders dated 21st September, 2000 passed in CWJC No.5003 of 1999. The learned Single Judge came to the conclusion that in the said writ petition, the entire order had been quashed, including that in relation to the respondent-petitioner and other persons whose names were mentioned in the list. This position was not even clarified in the Letters Patent Appeal that was filed against the said judgment which was dismissed. The SLP filed against the same before the Hon’ble Apex Court also came to be dismissed.
We are of the considered opinion that the learned Single Judge was perfectly justified in coming to the conclusion that there was no distinction between the case of Ravindra Kumar Tiwary (supra) and that of the respondent-petitioner. Consequently, we see no reason to differ from the view taken by the learned Single Judge. There is hardly any factual or legal error so as to warrant interference. Rejected.
(Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, CJ)
(Anjana Mishra, J)
Sunil/-
U
2 issues framed by the court
Whether there is a distinction between the facts of the respondent-petitioner's case and that in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5003 of 1999.
Whether the single judge's finding that the termination order was non-est was justified.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ravindra Kumar TiwaryReferred¶12
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5003 of 1999
State of Bihar
District Education Officer, Sitamarhi
Krishna Chandar Sah
Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
Anjana Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
