Dismissed

Uday Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Oct 2013CWJC/20238/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court dismissed the petitioner's writ petition challenging the rejection of his appeal for service regularisation. It held that since the petitioner was not in service on the relevant date under the Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006, he cannot claim absorption, continuation, or salary.

What did the court decide?

The writ application is dismissed; the petitioner is denied claim for absorption in service or payment of salary.

Uday Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20238 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== Uday Kumar S/O Sri Khuddi Mochi R/O Village Sisra, P.O. Gingee, P.S. Ghosi, District Jehanabad.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

1. The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

¶8

1. The Director, Primary Education, Department Of Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

¶9

1. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.

¶10

The District Education Officer, Jehanabad. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Ghosi, Jehanabad. 7. The Block Development Officer, Hulasganj, Jehanabad. 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Chiri, Hulasganj, Jehanabad. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chiri, Hulasganj, Jehanabad. 10. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sujit Kumar Sinha, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Upendra Pratap Singh, AC to SC-25 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶11

2 22-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief(s) prayed in this writ application:

¶12

"(i) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 14.05.2012 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jahanabad in Case No. 555(09)/2012 and issued under the signature of a learned Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority vide memo no. 495 dated 14.05.2012 (as contained in Annexure-9) whereby and

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.20238 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶14

¶15

whereunder the appeal filed by the petitioner has been rejected only on the ground that the appointment letter of the petitioner has been issued under the signature of the Mukhiya of the Panchayat and not under the signature of the Panchayat Secretary.

¶16

(ii) For issuance of an order, direction or writ including writ in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to allow the petitioner to work on the aforesaid post with all consequential benefits since he has been working on the same post to the satisfaction of all but has not been allowed to work since May2008 as no order of removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Teacher has ever been served and no show cause notice has ever been issued by the appropriate authority for any delinquency in this work period/service period.

¶17

Having regard to the admitted position that the petitioner did not get any further extension order of his tenure of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra beyond the period of 11 months and at least, to that extent, he could not lead any evidence before the Tribunal as has been specifically noted in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the petitioner cannot claim to have been absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher.

¶18

That being so, the petitioner, being not in service as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as on 1.7.2006 in terms of Rule 20(iii) of

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.20238 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶20

¶21

the Bihar Pancayat Teacher Appointment Rule, 2006, cannot claim any relief much less his continuation in service or payment of salary of a Panchayat Teacher. Having held so, this Court also does not find any error in the similar findings recorded by the Tribunal in its elaborate impugned relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-

¶22

^^1& o’kZ 2003 esa vuqca/k ij X;kjg ekg ds fy, f”k{kk fe= ds in ij ifjoknh mn; dqekj dk fu;kstu gqvk FkkA mlds ckn ls budk vof/k foLrkj laca/kh dksbZ vfHkys[k U;k;ky; ds le{k miLFkkfir ugha fd;k x;kA

¶23

2& ifjoknh mn; dqekj dk fu;kstu eSfVªd mÙkh.kZrk ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k FkkA

¶24

3& o’kZ 2010 esa ;s bUVjesfM;V dh ijh{kk ikl fd;s FksA

¶25

4& ifjoknh mn; dqekj us vius fnukad 9-4-2012 ds c;ku esa dgk Fkk fd flQZ eqf[k;k xzke iapk;r fpjh ds ,dy gLrk{kj ls muds vkns”k Kkikad 19 fnukad 21-7-2003 }kjk f”k{kk fe= ds in ij fu;kstu fd;k x;k Fkk tc fd fcgkj jkT; ds iapk;rksa }kjk iapk;r f”k{kk fe=ksa ds vuqca/k ij fu;kstu gsrq ekxZ n”kZu fl)kar ds rgr fcgkj ljdkj lsdsUMªh izkFkfed ,oa o;Ld f”k{kk foHkkx ds ladYi la0 1079 fo0 fnukad 20-6-2002 ,oa la”kksf/kr ladYi la0 1458 fnukad 11-8-2004 dh dafMdk 5 ¼[k½ esa vafdr Fkk fd f”k{kk fe= ds in ij fu;kstu gsrq lwpuk izdkf”kr gksus dh frfFk ls de ls de 15 fnuksa ds ckn dh fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd bfPNr mEehnokjksa ls vuqlwph “ d ” esa layXu izi= esa vkosnu ekWxs tk;sxsA iapk;r lfpo }kjk vkosnu izkIr fd;s tk;sxs vkSj mEehnokj dks izkfIr jlhn nh tk;sxhA bl i= dh dafMdk 10 esa vafdr Fkk fd iapk;r }kjk izpkj izlkj djus laca/kh dkxtkr vkosnu i= lq[k&lqfo/kk lfefr }kjk rS;kj dh x;h es/kk lwph iapk;r dk fu.kZ; ,oa iapk;r f”k{kk fe= }kjk fd;s x;s ,djkj ukek vkfn ls lHkh lacaf/kr vfHkys[k iapk;r ds lfpo }kjk

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.20238 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶27

¶28

lqjf{kr j[ks tk;sxsaA bl ladYi dh dafMdk 8 ¼t½ esa vafdr Fkk fd iapk;r f”k{kk fe= vkSj iapk;r ds chp vuqlwph “ [k ” esa layXu izi= esa ,djkj ukek fd;k tk;sxkA vuwlwph “ [k ” ds izi= ds vuqlkj ,djkj ukek dk izFke i{k iapk;r f”k{kk fe= ds gLrk{kj ,oa f}rh; i{k xzke iapk;r ds lfpo ds gLrk{kj ls fu’ikfnr djus dk funs”k FkkA blls Lor% Li’V Fkk fd fu;kstu i= xzke iapk;r ds lfpo ds gLrk{kj ls fuxZr fd;k tkuk FkkA vfHkys[kksa ds voyksdu ls Li’V gqvk fd flQZ eqf[k;k ds gLrk{kj ls ifjoknh mn; dqekj dk fu;kstu i= fuxZr fd;k x;k FkkA ,djkj ukek laca/kh dksbZ vfHkys[k izkf/kdkj U;k;ky; ds le{k miLFkkfir ugha fd;k x;k FkkA vH;FkhZ ls vkosnu i= eqf[k;k }kjk izkIr fd;k x;k Fkk tks foHkkxh; fu;ekuqdwy ugha FkkA

¶29

5& vusdksa Lekj i= nsus ds ckotwn eqf[k;k@iapk;r lfpo izkf/kdkj U;k;ky; esa mifLFkr ugha gq,A

¶30

vkns”k lfgr ekeys ds fu’iknu gsrq fnukad 14-5-2012 dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh xbZ%&

¶31

fnukd 14-5-2012 a vkn”ks

¶32

vihyh; izkf/kdkj U;k;ky; fu.kZ; ysrh gS fd%&

¶33

1& iapk;r f”k{kk fe= ds vuqca/k ij fu;kstu gsrq fcgkj ljdkj ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ds ladYi la0 1079 fo0 fnukad 20-6-2002 ,oa la”kksf/kr ladYi la0 1458 fnukad 11-8-2004 dh dafMdk 8 ¼t½ ,oa dafMdk 10 ds vuqlkj iapk;r f”k{kk fe= ls ,djkj ukek djus ,oa fu;kstu i= fuxZr djus dk vf/kdkj iapk;r lfpo dks Fkk ysfdu o’kZ 2003 ds fy, mn; dqekj dk f”k{kk fe= ds in ij fu;kstu i= eqf[k;k ds }kjk fuxZr fd;k x;k tks foHkkxh; fu;ekuqdwy ugha FkkA blfy, ifjoknh mn; dqekj ds vihy vH;kosnu dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSA

¶34

2& ftyk iapk;rh jkt inkf/kdkjh tgkukckn dks funs”k fn;k tkrk gS fd os eqf[k;k@iapk;r lfpo xzke iapk;r fpjh ij izkf/kdkj U;k;ky; esa fu/kkZfjr le; ij vuqifLFkr jgus ds dkj.k foHkkxh; dkjZokbZ dj U;k;ky; dks izfrosfnr djsaA

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.20238 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶36

¶37

rnuqlkj ekeys dks fu’ikfnr fd;k tkrk gSA**

¶38

In fact, the Tribunal has passed a very reasoned order after considering each and every aspect that was required to be gone into and such order therefore would require no interference of this Court.

¶39

That being so, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶40

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶41

Rishi/-

Uday Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uday Kumar 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Rishikesh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hazrat Ali and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Priyanka Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sri Nirmal Kumar Nirmal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Subh Narain Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.