Allowed

Girindra Mohan Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Jul 2012CWJC/11701/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner, Principal of a Sanskrit College, challenged a unilateral reduction in sanctioned teacher and non-teaching posts via a non-speeching order. The High Court held that once a decision is communicated, it must be reasoned and parties heard.

What did the court decide?

Order dated 09.09.2011 set aside; matter remanded to Human Resources Department for fresh reasoned order after hearing; Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University noticed.

Girindra Mohan Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.11701 of 2012 (2) dt.13-07-2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11701 of 2012

¶4

====================================================== Girindra Mohan Mishra , ' Paramhans' Son Of Late Harikant Mishra Resident of Village Kamla P.S. Ujiyarpur, Distt. Samastipur

¶5

.... .... Petitioner Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3. The Joint/Deputy Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4. The Director, Higher Education Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna

¶8

.... .... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance :

¶10

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suresh Kumar Ishwar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prasoon Sinha GA-2

¶11

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶12

2 13-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State takes a

¶14

preliminary objection with regard to non impleadment of the Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University, Darbhanga for proper adjudication of the claims made in the writ application. Counsel for the State is correct in his submission. But, since the writ application is proposed to be disposed on grounds of procedural infirmities in the decision making process and the matter is to be remanded, it is considered proper to direct that the University shall also be noticed and

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.11701 of 2012 (2) dt.13-07-2012

¶16

¶17

heard rather than to reject the writ application out right at this stage on that technicality multiplying litigation.

¶18

The petitioner is stated to be the Principal of the Pandit Madan Kant Jha Sanskrit College at Samastipur under the University. The submission is that by letter no. 1254 dated 04.05.2011, pursuant to the recommendation of the University, 26 posts of Teachers and 19 posts of non teaching staff, were approved by the State raising the total number of approved teaching posts to 38 and non teaching to 25. The order was communicated to the University which in turn communicated it to the petitioner on 08.09.2011. Subsequently, the respondent-State unilaterally by non speaking order has restricted it to 26 teaching posts and 19 non teaching posts only.

¶19

Counsel for the State opposes the application to submit that sanction of the posts is an executive matter done to the satisfaction of the authorities.

¶20

So long as the request for enhancement of teaching and non teaching posts was pending consideration and was being increased or decreased at the stage of decision making, the petitioner could not have a grievance. But once the decision was taken and communicated to the petitioner on

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.11701 of 2012 (2) dt.13-07-2012

¶22

¶23

08.09.2011 by the respondents through the University a limited right certainly accrues and any change in the decision dated 04.05.2011 had necessarily to be done after consulting and hearing the University and the Institution both.

¶24

The Court additionally finds that the order dated 09.09.2011 is completely non speaking in nature. Had it contained reasons perhaps the petitioner may have chosen a proper course of action for himself or the Court would have been able to adjudicate properly. Applying the standards of a prudent reasonable person the Court finds that according to the order dated 04.05.2011 the Institution was approved for 38 teaching posts which included 26 new posts. The letter dated 09.09.2011 by common notwithstanding leads to the conclusion that the earlier existing 12 posts vanished. Likewise, 19 additional non teaching posts have been approved taking the total to 25. Similarly, 6 additional posts exiting since earlier vanished under the order dated 09.09.2011.

¶25

The order dated 09.09.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Human Resources Department for passing a fresh reasoned and speaking order after furnishing the grounds and reasons on which the respondents proposed to

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.11701 of 2012 (2) dt.13-07-2012

¶27

¶28

proceed, both to the petitioner and the University after hearing.

¶29

hearing.

¶30

Let the order be complied with within two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order.

¶31

The application is allowed.

¶32

(Navin Sinha, J.)

¶33

Md. Ibrarul/-

Girindra Mohan Mishra v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Girindra Mohan Mishra 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

Nandan Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ravi Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Shyam Krishna Singh Vs L. N. Mithila Univ. and Ors.

Md.Kalamuddin Ansari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Kumar Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Fakir Chand Ram and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.