Allowed

Bhogendra Jha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Jul 2012CWJC/12564/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the writ petition against orders disentitling the petitioner to service due to exceeding age limit. Finding hostile discrimination where others received age relaxation, the Court quashed the orders and remanded the matter for a reasoned exercise of discretionary power to grant relief or rejection.

What did the court decide?

The impugned orders were set aside and the matter remanded to respondent no. 3 for passing a fresh reasoned order within three months.

Bhogendra Jha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.12564 of 2012 (2) dt.23-07-2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12564 of 2012

¶5

======================================================

¶6

Bhogendra Jha S/O Late Shiv Narayan Jha R/O Vill-Pandaul At Budhan Jha Tola, P.S.-Pandaul, Distt-Madhubani

¶7

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Secondary Education Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶10

The District Education Officer, Madhubani , Distt-Madhubani 5. The Head Master, Anuplal Project Girls High School, Brahmotra, Pandaul, Madhubani

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s

¶12

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishiraj Sinha GP-19

¶13

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

¶14

2 23-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶15

State.

¶16

The petitioner is aggrieved by orders dated 22.07.2008 and 11.01.2012. The orders decline to acknowledge his continuance in service consequent to take over of the school as a Project School, on the ground that at the time of appointment in the School originally, he was over age from 31 by approximately 16 months.

¶17

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the order dated 22.07.2008 the petitioner filed an Appeal. He specifically took the ground that there was provision for

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.12564 of 2012 (2) dt.23-07-2012

¶19

¶20

relaxation of age and more particularly that it had been granted to certain others mentioned in his representation. It is next submitted that while passing a similar order in C.W.J.C. No. 7060 of 2011 it has been noticed that such relaxation was also ordered in C.W.J.C. No. 7429 of 1999 (Kamlesh Mishra v. State of Bihar).

¶21

The order in Kamlesh Mishra (supra) has not been brought on record and the Court has not had the benefit of perusing it.

¶22

Be that as it may, even if the petitioner was appointed as a Teacher in a private school, 16 months in excess of the maximum age prescribed, it was not a void contract as he was of the age of majority competent to enter into a contract. It may have been a voidable contract. But if the contract was not terminated on that ground, and there was a provision for relaxation of age which benefit had been granted to others and the petitioner had successfully demonstrated it in his representation, the respondents having not denied it even in the final order dated 11.01.2012 after the petitioner has raised that objection, the Court is satisfied that he has been able to make out a case of hostile discrimination.

¶23

It is therefore held that if there was a provision for relaxation of age, the respondents were required to pass a specific

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.12564 of 2012 (2) dt.23-07-2012

¶25

¶26

order disclosing reasons why they were not inclined to exercise the discretionary power in his claims. The impugned order discloses no ground for refusal to exercise discretion, more particularly when allegations have been made of hostile discrimination.

¶27

The impugned orders are therefore set aside. The matter is remanded to respondent no. 3 for passing a fresh reasoned order as discussed presently within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order.

¶28

The respondents are expected to consider any other

¶29

orders that the petitioner may place before them.

¶30

The application is allowed.

¶31

(Navin Sinha, J.)

¶32

Md. Ibrarul/-

Bhogendra Jha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhogendra Jha 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Harendra Singh Vs The Rajendra Agricultural University and Ors.

Pritam Kumari @ Priyatam Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Premchandra Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.satya Deo Pandey Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shashi Raman Tiwari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Binod Kumar Bimal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.