Disposed

Arshad Hussain and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Oct 2013CWJC/20674/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Patna disposed of a writ petition by six petitioners seeking inclusion in the final gradation list for promotion. Relying on a previous order, it directed the Principal Secretary to consider the petitioners' case for promotion under the condition that their names do not appear in the pending vigilance inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Order of disposal directing the Principal Secretary to examine vigilance case status and consider promotion if names are not in FIR.

Arshad Hussain and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20674 of 2011

¶3

====================================================== 1. Arshad Hussain Son Of Imamul Haque Resident Of Village-Dhum Nagar, Police Station-Hussainganj, District-Siwan. 2. Madan Prasad Son Of Late Dina Nath Prasad Resident Of Village & Police Station-Raghnathpur, Police Station-Siwan. 3. Kahaiyaji Shukla Son Of Late Bhrigunath Shukla Resident Of VillageMastichak, P.S.-Dariyapur, District-Saran At Chapra. 4. Ajay Kumar Singh Son Of Sr. Ragho Prasad Singh Resident Of VillageMirjapur, P.S.-Awtar Nagar, District-Saran At Chapra. 5. Nirmala Singh Wife Of Shidheshwar Prasad Singh Resident Of VillageChatanya Nagar, Gudari, Police Station-Bhagwan Bazar, District-Saran At Chapra. 6. Sunil Dutt Ram Son Of Sri Nathuni Ram Resident Of Village-Mandra Pali, Police Station-Pachrukhhi, District-Siwan. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Special Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Saran Division, Chapra. 6. The District Superintendent Of Education-Cum-Enquiry Officer, Saran At Chapra. 7. The Sub Divisional Education Officer, Saran (South)-Cum-Conducting Officer, Saran At Chapra. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ajay Bihari Sinha SC-19 ======================================================

¶4

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR

¶5

MANDAL

¶6

ORAL ORDER

¶7

6 21-10-2013 Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the petitioners and J.C. to S.C.-19 for the State.

¶8

The six petitioners have joined hand in filing the present writ petition seeking a direction upon the respondents to include their names in the final gradation list of the employee in the cadre of Lower Subordinate

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.20674 of 2011 (6) dt.21-10-2013

¶10

2 / 4

¶11

Education Service prepared for promotion to the post of Block Education Extension Officer after completing the procedure prescribed therefore.

¶12

The petitioners claim to have been appointed as Assistant Teacher in the basic school some time in the year 1991. The selection made by the respondents became subject matter of investigation both by the State respondents as well as by a criminal court vide Vigilance Case No. 50 of 2012. It is the case of the petitioners that in the vigilance case filed before the court the petitioners have not been named as an accused in the first information report. That matter is pending consideration. In the meantime State respondents initiated the process for selection of eligible persons for grant of promotion on the post of Block Education Extension Officers. The petitioners figured in the provisional gradation list prepared by the respondent(s) Subsequently the final gradation list was prepared in which the names of the petitioners did not figure. That gave them the cause of action for filing the writ petition.

¶13

Mr. Verma learned counsel for the petitioners handed in a web copy of the order dated 06.08.2012 passed by a Bench of this Court in C.W.J.C. No.10407 of 2012. Copy of the said order is placed on record and marked „Y‟ for identification. It has been submitted that in the light of the said order the present writ petition be also disposed of enabling the respondent Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar to examine himself the case of the petitioners in the light of

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.20674 of 2011 (6) dt.21-10-2013

¶15

3 / 4

¶16

the said order and take appropriate decision in accordance with law and the direction issued therein.

¶17

Learned counsel for the State submitted that the petitioners were illegally appointed by the Regional Deputy Director of Education in the year 1991 which has resulted in filing of criminal case which is pending consideration. Since the matter is pending before the court the case of the petitioners was not considered for promotion. The learned State Counsel however, having gone through the order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10407 of 2012 agrees to disposal of the case in the light of the order passed in the said writ petition.

¶18

On perusal of order dated 06.08.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 10407 of 2012 it appears that this court directed the respondent Principal Secretary of the Human Resources Development Department to himself examine whether the petitioners were named in the Vigilance P.S. Case No.50 of 2012 and thereafter consider the case of the petitioner in the light of the observation made therein. This court would profitably extract herein below the relevant part/operative portion of the order dated 06.08.2012 which reads thus:

¶19

“Though the Principal Secretary , Department of Education, has not been made a party respondent, in the nature and manner of assistance rendered by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, the court is left with no option but to direct the Principal Secretary to himself examine if the petitioners were named in the Vigilance P.S. Case No. 50/12 lodged on 28.6.2012.

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.20674 of 2011 (6) dt.21-10-2013

¶21

4 / 4

¶22

Needless to state that if their names figure in the same, the nature of relief sought in the writ application cannot be granted. But, if their names do not figure in the First information Report, the recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee keeping their cases pending subject to the conclusion of the vigilance enquiry is not sustainable and their case for promotion is required to be considered in accordance with law.

¶23

Let such consideration be done and a reasoned and speaking order passed by the Principal Secretary within a maximum period of four weeks from the date of receipt/promotion of a copy of this order.

¶24

The application is disposed”.

¶25

Having regard to the submissions made at Bar the present application is also disposed of in the manner in which C.W.J.C. No.10407 of 2012 was disposed of. Operative portion thereof has already been extracted above.

¶26

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶27

M.Rahman/-

Arshad Hussain and Ors. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Arshad Hussain and Ors. 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

Amitabh Paswan @ Pahalwan @ Amitabh Singh @ Amitab Paswan Vs The State Of Bihar

Bachandeo Rai @ Bachan Rai @ Ram Bachan Rai Vs The State Of Bihar

Parmatma Singh Vs The Allahabad Bank and Ors.

Balbhadra Jha Vs the Chairman Bihar Sanskrit Sh

Narendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Raqaiya Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.