Dismissed

Gajendra Mandal v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Aug 2012CWJC/13690/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner, an Assistant Teacher appointed by a private school managing committee as a minor, sought absorption in state service citing parity with other similarly situated persons. The court held he lacked capacity to enter a binding contract as a minor and dismissed the grievance. Relied on Supreme Court and High Court precedents regarding incompetence of minors in service contracts. Case di

What did the court decide?

Writ application seeking direction for absorption in service on grounds of parity to those appointed as adults or regularized later was dismissed.

Gajendra Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13690 of 2012

¶2

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

¶3

Gajendra Mandal S/O Late Raghubir Mandal Resident Of VillageManpur, P.S- Gamarhiya, Distt- Madhepura, At Present Posted As Asst. Teacher Primary School, Jalubar, Singheshwar, Distt- Madhepura.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State Of Bihar

¶7

Director Primary And Middle School, Bihar, Patna.

¶8

District Education Officer, Madhepura.

¶9

District Superintendent Of Education Madhepura.

¶10

District Programme Officer, Establishment Madhepura.

¶11

Area Education Officer, Udakishunganj, Madhepura.

¶12

.... .... Respondent/s

¶13

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

¶14

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S. K. Lal & Arun Kumar Sinha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awdhesh Kumar Pandey Ga9

¶15

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

¶16

2 16-08-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶17

The petitioners seeks direction to be considered for absorption in service referring to certain statements made by the respondents in their counter affidavit in CWJC No. 12125 of 2006 preferred by the petitioner earlier for the same relief.

¶18

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Primary School, Jaluwar by the Managing Committee on 12.11.1970. The school was subsequently taken over by the State on 1.1.1971 and the pay scale of the employees revised also. The candidature of the petitioner was rejected on the ground that he was below 18 years of age when he was appointed by the Managing Committee of the erstwhile private School. In CWJC No. 1323 of 1992 preferred by the petitioner, on 3.8.1992 the Director, Primary Education was directed to pass appropriate orders. The claim was rejected on the same ground of his being

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.13690 of 2012 (2) dt.16-08-2012

¶20

¶21

underage. Referring to certain writ applications filed in the years 1991 and 1993, the numbers of which are mentioned in para 10 of the writ application, it is submitted that similarly situated persons appointed by the Managing Committee, below 18 years of age, were directed to be absorbed observing that the number of years for which they obtained the benefits prior to the age of 18 years shall be appropriately adjusted from the age of superannuation. The petitioner again came to the Court in CWJC No. 12125 of 2006 for the same relief. The writ application was dismissed. LPA No. 807 of 2007 preferred against the same was permitted to be withdrawn in view of the statements made in paragraph 9 of the counter affidavit that his case was identical with those who have been absorbed in pursuance of the orders of the Court. He is therefore entitled to parity of treatment as similarly situated persons cannot be treated differently.

¶22

Counsel for the State has opposed the application submitting that once CWJC No. 12125 of 2006 was dismissed and the appeal withdrawn, the individual claim of the petitioner attained finality and any orders passed with respect to others in the years 1991 and 1993 were no more relevant for his claims.

¶23

The appointment of the petitioner by the Managing Committee of a private School as an Assistant Teacher was undoubtedly a contract between the parties. The only question of law that arises is whether the petitioner as a minor was capable of entering into a contract. Was it a void contract or a voidable contract?

¶24

In (2002) 9 SCC 749 (Employer in relation to the Management of G.C. of ECCL v. Workmen) the contention was that though appointed underage, by the time regularisation was being claimed his disability had vanished. It was held at paragraph 3 as follows:

¶25

“3…….We do not find such a finding could be

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.13690 of 2012 (2) dt.16-08-2012

¶27

¶28

sustainable in the eyes of law. Once this is found, they were underage in the year 1973, their regularisation based on such appointment cannot be upheld…..”

¶29

In 2005(2) PLJR 427 (Rajendra Prasad v. State of Bihar) the issues

¶30

were similar. Referring to Section 11 of the Contract Act it was held at paragraph 11 as follows:-

¶31

“11. The basic premise for entering into contract is competence by a person who is of the age of majority according to law, according to which he be subject. This in the Indian context is upheld to be 18 years for males. In the circumstances, it cannot be doubted that the petitioner was incompetent to enter into the contract for government service on the date when he did do so being under 18 years of age. If that be so, to grant relief to the petitioner by quashing of the order dated 13.10.99 for reasons of the order dated 22.6.1999 would be travesty of justice. It would quite simply result in revival of an illegal situation…..”

¶32

The writ application is dismissed.

¶33

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶34

Snkumar/-

Gajendra Mandal v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gajendra Mandal 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

Pramod Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Tetari Devi @ Tetari Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Baban Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bablu Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ghanshyam Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raju Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.