Partly allowed

Dr.Bibha Lata Keshri v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC26 Oct 2010CWJC/9412/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Patna held that an In-Charge appointment exceeding two years violates seniority norms and cannot be treated as permanent. Court directed respondents to appoint the senior-most lecturer as In-Charge Principalforthwith within two weeks, specifying the duration of such temporary appointments.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner permitted to continue as In-Charge for two weeks; must appoint senior-most lecturer as In-Charge Principal forthwith thereafter.

Dr.Bibha Lata Keshri Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2010)

¶1

 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
 CWJC No.9412 of 2010

¶2

1. DR.BIBHA LATA KESHRI D/O SHRI B.P.KESHARI R/O MOH M/2, HOUSE
NO.6, ROAD NO. 10 'E', RAJENDRA NAGAR, PATNA-16, DISTT-PATNA

¶3

 Versus

¶4

1. THE STATE OF BIHAR PATNA

¶5

2. THE CHIEF SECRETARY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶6

3. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶7

4. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶8

5. THE DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF SCIENCE OF TECHNOLOGY GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA

¶9

6. SMT.NIRUPAMA D/O RAM PRAVESH SINGH LECTURER IN LIBERY SCIENCE
CUM INCHARGE PRINCIPAL OF GOVT. OF WOMEN'S POLYTECHNIC
PULWARISHARIF, PATNA

¶10

 -----------

¶11

4/ 26/10/2010 Heard the petitioner who appears in person, learned counsel for respondent No.6 and learned counsel for the State.

¶12

The petitioner questions the order dated 30.6.2008 by which respondent No.6 has been appointed as In-Charge Principal of the Government Women’s Polytechnic, Phulwarisharif, Patna.

¶13

The petitioner submits that she is the senior most lecturer in the college at Phulwarisharif. Respondent No.6 is seven years junior to her. While the petitioner joined on 1.7.1987, respondent No.6 joined on 26.8.1994. The

¶14

name of the petitioner stands at serial No.7 of the seniority list while that of respondent No.6 at 37. The petitioner has represented on 29.8.2008 and 17.10.2008 to be considered for appointment as the In-charge Principal being the senior most lecturer.

¶15

¶16

Separate counter affidavits have been filed by the State and by respondent No.6. None of the two counter affidavits deny the specific assertions of the petitioner in the writ application of her being senior to respondent No.6.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State submits from the counter affidavit that the petitioner was not considered suitable for appointment as the Principal. Reliance is placed on certain orders passed on 3.4.1998 and 19.12.2008 at Annexures-C and D to the counter affidavit coupled with the pleadings in paragraph-6.

¶18

Respondent No.6 in her counter affidavit reiterates that she had been appointed only in an In-charge capacity when the official respondents found the petitioner unsuitable.

¶19

Neither the petitioner nor private respondent No.6 has a right to claim appointment on the post of an Incharge Principal. As the nomenclature itself denotes, it is a temporary arrangement. But this temporary arrangement also has to be in accordance with law by appointment of the senior most lecturer as the Principal. The official respondents have made an In-charge appointment more than two years ago virtually giving it the shape of a final appointment. The defence taken by them in the counter affidavit that they did take steps by sending requisition to the Bihar Public Service Commission, but no suitable

¶20

¶21

candidates were being found and that they were in the process of application of mind to re-fixation of qualifications for appointment as Principal is an alibi which the Court rejects.

¶22

The ground urged in the counter affidavit of the official respondents that the petitioner was recommended to be debarred from examination and confidential work has been made very vaguely. No details have been mentioned as to when the occurrence took place, what was lacking in her conduct and for what reason the respondents were correlating it to the denial of the present consideration. The second ground urged is with regard to certain unauthorized absence in 1998 which the respondents themselves acknowledge vide Annexures- C and D to their counter affidavit to have subsequently considered sympathetically and condoned. If it was condoned, it can no more be a ground to deny consideration. The respondents cannot simultaneously condone any lapses and rely on the lapses also. If it stood condoned it cannot be taken into consideration.

¶23

Any order today unseating respondent No.6 immediately may have its repercussions on the academic environment and functioning of the college. Therefore, respondent No.6 is permitted to continue as an In-charge Principal for a period of two weeks only from the date of

¶24

¶25

receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before respondent No.3. After expiry of two weeks from the date of service of the order, respondent No.6 shall cease to be the In-charge Principal by virtue of the orders of this Court and no formal orders by the State respondents shall be required. The respondents must appoint the senior most lecturer as the officiating In-charge Principal forthwith thereafter so that the academic environment and the functioning of the institution is not affected in absence of any Principal. Such In-Charge appointment of the senior most person as the Principal shall automatically cease on expiry of four months from the date of such appointment and during which time the respondents are obliged to make appointment of a regular Principal. After four months when the In-charge arrangement ceases, the responsibility shall lie with the official respondents for leaving the institution headless, without a Principal.

¶26

Let the respondents in the aforesaid manner pass a reasoned and speaking order with regard to appointment of the senior most person as the Principal within a maximum period of three weeks from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order before respondent No.3.

¶27

The application is disposed.

¶28

¶29

( Navin Sinha, J.)

Dr.Bibha Lata Keshri v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dr.Bibha Lata Keshri v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Namrata Kumari Vs Tilka Manjhi Bhagalpur Univers

Lakshman Ram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Kusheshwar Nath Pandey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dayanand Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shekhar Saran Srivastava Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mostt.Anita Pandey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.