Allowed

Prabin Chandra Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC30 Apr 2013CWJC/9725/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court examined petitions filed by lecturers in +2 Government and Nationalised Schools challenging a Government Notification that encadrated them with teachers in Nationalised Schools. The Court held that these lecturers belonged to the Subordinate Educational Service and quashed the impugned Notification.

What did the court decide?

The Notification dated 23rd June 2009 encadring +2 lecturers with Nationalised school teachers was quashed and set aside. Petitioners were recognized as members of the Subordinate Educational Service.

Prabin Chandra Singh Vs the State of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14009 of 2006

¶2

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

¶3

Dr. Sarwar Akram Khan, son of late Prof. T.R. Khan, resident of 1, New Azimabad Colony, P.O. Mahendru, Patna – 800006,

¶4

Dr. Anil Kumar Mishra, son of Sri Sadanand Mishra, resident of A/79, Mithila Co-operative, Road No. 14(C), Rajeev Nagar, Patna – 24,

¶5

Shankar Kumar, son of Sri Madhusudan Lal, Resident of Mohalla Ram Ji Chak, P.O. Bata Ganj, P.S. Digha, District Patna,

¶6

Ajay Kumar Singh, son of late Dukh Mochan Singh, resident of Kusumpuram Colony, Near Bailey Road, Leed Asian School, Danapur, Patna,

¶7

Dr. Binadhar Jha, son of late Dular Jha, resident of L.F. 1/60, Flat No. 10, Road No. 10, Rajendra Nagar, Patna – 16,

¶8

Dr. Arun Kumar Jha, son of Sri Man Mohan Jha, resident of C/o Shashi Shekhar Singh, B.N.R. Road (Tripolia), Gulzarbagh, Patna - 7

¶9

.... .... Petitioners

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Bihar

¶12

Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶13

Director of Secondary Education-cum-Additional Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶14

.... .... Respondent/s

¶15

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

¶16

with

¶17

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 683 of 2007

¶18

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

¶19

Dr. Karunesh Kumar son of Shri Ramprit Sharma, President, Bihar State + 2 Lecturer’s Association, resident of Rajiv Nagar, Kanti Factory Road, P.S. – Patrakar Nagar, Kankerbagh, District – Patna – 26,

¶20

Dr. Arun Kumar Singh, son of Late Krishna Nand Singh, Vice President, Bihar State + 2 Lecturer’s Association, P.C. Colony, J-171, Kankerbagh, P.S. – Kankerbagh, District – Patna – 20,

¶21

Shri Dinesh Kumar Gupta, son of Murlidhar Sahu, resident of Flat No. 202, Narayan Place – 42, P.S. – Kotwali, Fraser Road, District – Patna – 800 001,

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶23

2/16

¶24

Dr. Rajiv Kamal, son of late Deo Nandan Singh, resident of South Ramkrishna Nagar, near Elite School, P.S. Gaurichak, T.O.P. Gopalpur Kankarbagh, District - Patna – 20,

¶25

Shri Uma Shankar Mishra, son of late Baidhya Nath Mishra, Lecturer in Maithili, V.M. Inter School, Gopalganj (Bihar)

¶26

.... .... Petitioners

¶27

Versus

¶28

The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna,

¶29

Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Finance Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna,

¶30

Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶31

Director of Secondary Education, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶32

.... .... Respondent/s

¶33

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

¶34

with

¶35

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18793 of 2008

¶36

====================================================== Shyama Nandan Mishra, son of late Naresh Mishra, resident of Village – Patsa, P.O. Patsa, P.S. Hasanpur, District – Samastipur

¶37

.... .... Petitioner

¶38

Versus

¶39

The State of Bihar through Secretary, Personal and Administrative Reforms Department, Old Secretariat, Patna,

¶40

Principal Secretary, Finance Department, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶41

Principal Secretary, H.R.D. Department, New Secretariat, Patna,

¶42

Director, Secondary Education, New Secretariat, Patna

¶43

.... .... Respondent/s

¶44

With

¶45

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15114 of 2009

¶46

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

¶47

Dr. Subhas Chandra Singh S/O Chandreshwari Prasad Singh R/O South Chitragupta Nagar, P.O.- Chitragupta Nagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna- 20

¶48

Ravi Ranjan S/O Late Chandrika Prasad R/O “Chandra Ranjan Villa”, P.O.- Chitragupta Nagar, P.S.- Patrakar Nagar, Kankarbagh, Patna- 20

¶49

Dr. Sharad Kumar Sinha S/O Sri Krishna Kant Sinha 302, Pushpa Bharti

¶50

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶51

3/16

¶52

Apartment, Sardar Patel Path, P.O.- S.K.Puri, P.S.- General Post Office, North S.K.Puri, Patna-800013

¶53

Dr. Arun Kumar Jha S/O Late Dr. C.D.Jha, Malti Sadan, Opp. Lalita Hotel, Boring Canal Road, P.S.- S.K.Puri, P.O.- General Post Office Patna800023

¶54

Dr. Jogendra Prasad S/O Late Ramdeo Singh R/O Bhashkar Nagar, West of Police Line, Karma Road, P.S.- Aurangabad, P.O.- Aurangabad, Aurangabad

¶55

Dr. Trilokinath, Lecturer S/O Late Ramsubhag Thakur R/O V.M. Inter College, P.S.- Gopalganj, P.O.- GPO, Gopalganj, Bihar

¶56

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶57

Versus

¶58

The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary, Old Secretariat, Patna

¶59

The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Development Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶60

The Director of Secondary-Education, Human Resources Development Deptt. Govt. of Bihar, Patna

¶61

.... .... Respondent/s

¶62

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

¶63

with

¶64

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.7363 of 2010

¶65

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

¶66

Jaya Tiwary W/O Sri Deva Nand Tiwari R/O Flat No.401, Sushma Apartment , Road No.10, Rajendra Nagar, Patna, P.S. Kadam Kuan, DisttPatna

¶67

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶68

Versus

¶69

The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary Old Secretariat, Patna

¶70

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Government of Bihar, Patna

¶71

The Director Secondary Education Human Resources Development Department Government of Bihar, Patna

¶72

.... .... Respondent/s

¶73

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

¶74

with

¶75

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9725 of 2011

¶76

====================================================== Prabin Chandra Singh, S/o Late Shiv Nandan Singh R/O, Vill.-Sri Rampur, P.O.-Temtha, P.S.-Parbatta, Dist.-Khagariya

¶77

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶78

4/16

¶79

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶80

Versus

¶81

1. The State of Bihar

¶82

The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna

¶83

The Director of Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna-800001

¶84

.... .... Respondent/s Appearance: (In CWJC No.14009 of 2006) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, AC to GP 21. (In CWJC No.683 of 2007) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi, AAG 14 & Mr. Ritesh Kumar, AC to AAG 14. (In CWJC No.18793 of 2008) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pratap Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Amarendra Kumar, AC to AAG 3. (In CWJC No.15114 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. S.N. Pathak and Mr. Amit Kumar Singh, Advocates. For the Respondent/s : -----(In CWJC No.7363 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Dr. M.P. Shukla, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jahan Ara, AC to AAG 5. (In CWJC No.9725 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Devendra Kr. Sinha, AAG 2. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶85

and

¶86

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA

¶87

CAV Judgment.

¶88

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶89

5/16

¶90

The 30th April 2013.

¶91

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶92

This group of Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution have been filed by the lecturers in +2 Government Schools and the lecturers in +2 Nationalised Schools [the NonGovernment Schools taken over by the Government of Bihar under the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Control and Management) Act, 1981, (hereinafter referred to as “the 1981 Act”)].

¶93

From the material on records, it appears that the erstwhile educational pattern of Primary, Secondary and High School was altered and a new educational pattern of 10+2+3 was introduced in the State of Bihar in 1979 i.e. 10 years of schooling, 2 years of Higher Secondary and 3 years of college Graduation. At the relevant time, in absence of sufficient infrastructure available in the Secondary Schools, the higher secondary education was imparted by the colleges. In 1985, the Government of Bihar introduced +2 education (Higher Secondary Education) in the Government and the Nationalised Schools in the State of Bihar. On 7^th July 1985, the Director of Secondary Education sent a communication to all District Education Officers. Under the said communication, the Director conveyed the intention of the State Government to commence +2 education in 100 Government and Nationalised Secondary Schools for Academic Year 1985-86. It was further conveyed that no additional post for +2 education was being created. Until such posts were created, +2 Higher Secondary education would be imparted by the Post Graduate Teachers available in the existing set up. The said communication further clarified that the curriculum for the +2 education would be

¶94

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶95

6/16

¶96

the same as in the Government recognized Inter College; that the teachers should possess a minimum Post Graduate qualification in Second Division; that the selection would be made by the Bihar School Service Board, etc. Following the said decision, on 13^th November 1985, the State Government sanctioned the posts of Principal, Head of the Department, Lecturer and Clerk for 37 Government Boys’ and Girls’ Secondary Schools and 66 Nationalised Secondary Schools from the period from 1^st November 1985 to 28^th February 1986. One post of Principal in Bihar Education Service Class I, two posts of Head of the Department in Bihar Education Service Class II and four posts of Lecturers in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service were sanctioned for each of the aforesaid 103 schools to impart +2 education.

¶97

As we are concerned with the lecturers in +2 Schools, we shall concentrate on the cadre of lecturers. The posts of lecturers were sanctioned in the pay scale of Rs. 940-1660/-. Pursuant to the aforesaid decision of the State Government, the Bihar School Service Board (hereinafter referred to as “the Board”) gave a public notice to invite applications from eligible candidates for appointment as lecturer in +2 Government and Nationalized Secondary Schools in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service in the pay scale of Rs. 940-1660/-. Pursuant to the said advertisement and the ensuing selection process, some 147 lecturers were appointed in the Government and the Nationalised +2 Schools in January 1990. The notification of appointment issued by the State Government indicated that the said appointments were made on newly created ex-cadre posts in +2 Schools on ad hoc and temporary basis. The petitioners before

¶98

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶99

7/16

¶100

us are these lecturers who were appointed pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/87 and selection by the Board. The said temporary appointment was continued for succeeding academic years under the Government Notifications issued from time to time. All throughout, these posts were referred to as the ex-cadre posts.

¶101

It appears that on 11^th April 1977, the State Government passed a Resolution to merge the cadre of Subordinate Education Service in that of Bihar Education Service. The said Resolution, however, was not implemented for more than 20 years. Feeling aggrieved, the association of secondary teachers and others approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution for enforcing the said Resolution dated 11^th April 1977. This Court ( Coram : S.J. Mukhopadhyay, J., as he then was), under order dated 2^nd February 2000 made on CWJC No. 12122 of 1998, directed the Government of Bihar to act upon the Government decision contained in the Resolution dated 11^th April 1977. The said order was confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 65 of 2003 and was affirmed in S.L.P. No. 6450 of 2003. Pursuant to the decision of this Court, under Resolution dated 7^th July 2006 passed by the State Government, the cadre of Subordinate Education Service (Teaching Branch) (Male and Female teachers) was merged with Bihar Education Service. Modalities of such merger were decided by the Government on 16^th October 2006. Under the said decision in respect of the lecturers in +2 Schools, the State Government decided that the lecturers in +2 Schools were appointed on excadre posts; they were never treated or recognized as Subordinate Educational Service and that the demand to treat the said posts as

¶102

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶103

8/16

¶104

part of Bihar Educational Service was not tenable. It is this decision of the State Government which has resulted into this group of Writ Petitions.

¶105

The petitioners claim that the aforesaid posts of lecturers in +2 Schools were created by the State Government in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. The public Advertisement No. 1/87 also indicated that the appointments were to be made in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. The petitioners are, therefore, in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and are entitled to be merged with Bihar Education Service Class II as decided under the Government Resolution dated 7^th July 2006.

¶106

Thus, the matter that arises for our consideration is whether or not the lecturers in +2 Schools appointed pursuant to the public Advertisement No. 1/87 were appointed in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and are entitled to be merged into Bihar Education Service Class II pursuant to the Government Resolution dated 7^th July 2006.

¶107

Pending this group of Writ Petitions, under its Notification dated 23^rd June 2009 issued in exercise of powers conferred by Section 9 read with Section 15 of the 1981 Act, the Government of Bihar has framed Bihar Government Higher Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2009 to amend Bihar Government Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. Under the said Notification, the Government of Bihar has defined the word “ lecturer ” to mean 148 lecturers who were appointed in Inter Level +2 schools in the undivided State of Bihar pursuant to the public Advertisement No. 1/87 published by the Bihar School Service

¶108

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶109

9/16

¶110

Board. Under the said amendment, the State Government has encadered the posts of +2 lecturer with that of the teachers in the nationalised schools. In other words, all those lecturers in +2 schools who were appointed in January 1990 pursuant to their selection by the Board have now been encadered with the teachers in the Nationalised Secondary Schools and will be governed by the service conditions governing such teachers. The aforesaid action of the State Government has generated a fresh spate of litigations and challenge to the said Notification by the above writ petitioners.

¶111

Learned advocates Mr. Durga Nand Jha, Mr. Sarvadeo Singh, Mr. Pratap Sharma, Mr. S.N. Pathak, Dr. M.P. Shukla and Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh have appeared for the writ petitioners. According to the learned advocates, the posts of +2 lecturer were created in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service (Selection Grade). The writ petitioners, therefore, belong to Bihar Subordinate Educational Service (Selection Grade). As a matter of right, they are governed by the conditions of service prescribed for the said Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. They are also entitled to be merged into Bihar Education Service Class II pursuant to the Government decision dated 7^th July 2006. It is the grievance of the petitioners that on account of the Government’s apathy and indifferent attitude towards the +2 lecturers, they are deprived of the service benefits available to the Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. On such deprivation, the petitioners are precluded from promotion to higher posts of Head of the Department, Principal and other administrative posts in Bihar Education Service Class II and Class I. Although the +2 lecturers possess higher educational qualification and perform more

¶112

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶113

10/16

¶114

onerous duty of teaching Higher Secondary students, in the matter of promotion to the higher post, the secondary school teachers have gained an edge over the petitioners. The learned advocates have submitted that to add insult to the injury the State Government has now amended the 1983 Rules under Government Notification dated 23^rd June 2009. Under the said Notification, +2 lecturers appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/87 (petitioners and such others) have been encadered with the secondary teachers in the Nationalised schools. They have submitted that +2 lecturers were always above the secondary school teachers. They cannot be encadered with the secondary school teachers. The impugned Notification amounts to treating unequals as equals. The impugned Notification is, therefore, ultra vires Articles 16(1) and 14 of the Constitution. The learned advocates have submitted that by the impugned Notification dated 23^rd June 2009, the worst hit are the +2 lecturers in the Government Schools. In the submission of the learned advocates, the +2 lecturers appointed in the Government Schools were always treated as Government servants and were entitled to same pay and allowances and other service benefits as Government servants or teachers in Government Schools. Now that under the impugned Notification such lecturers have been encadered with the teachers in the Nationalised Schools, the service benefits admissible to such +2 lecturers in Government Schools will stand withdrawn. To illustrate a few, the +2 lecturers in the Government Schools will not be entitled to the benefit of Time Bound promotion or Assured Career Progression or further promotion to Bihar Education Service Class II and Class I. The impugned Notification is thus discriminatory and is hostile to the

¶115

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶116

11/16

¶117

interest of the +2 lecturers. The learned advocates have also submitted that the State Government has no authority to alter the service conditions of its employees. The learned advocates have also invoked the principles of legitimate expectation and promissory estoppel .

¶118

It is the claim of the writ petitioners that they were appointed as lecturers in +2 schools and were always superior to the teachers in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service (Teaching Branch). All such lecturers were appointed through one common recruitment process and pursuant to a common merit list. Some of them were posted in the Government Schools while some others were posted in the Nationalised Schools. In whichever school they were posted, they were at par and there was no distinction between the nature of services rendered by the two groups of lecturers. The said lecturers were, therefore, required to be absorbed in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and merged in Bihar Education Service Class II.

¶119

However, with a view to sabotaging the claim of the writ petitioners, the State Government has issued the impugned Notification dated 23^rd June 2009 clubbing the services of +2 lecturers with that of the teachers in the Nationalised Schools. Thus, the State Government has circumvented the claim made by the writ petitioners for absorption in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service and consequent merger into Bihar Education Service. To buttress their contention that the lecturers were appointed in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service, the writ petitioners have relied upon the judgment of this Court ( Coram: S.J. Mukhopadhyay, J., as he then was) passed in CWJC No. 2445 of 1994 decided o 30^th September 1997.

¶120

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶121

12/16

¶122

The petitions are contested by learned Additional Advocate General Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi. Mr. Shahi has submitted that the appointment letters issued to the petitioners were specific that they were appointed temporarily on ex-cadre posts. The petitioners having accepted the appointment on excadre posts, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioners to claim that they are appointed in the Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. He has also submitted that all +2 lecturers have been treated equally and uniformally and have been encadered in one cadre of teachers in the Nationalised Schools. The Government’s action, therefore, cannot be said to be arbitrary or discriminatory as alleged.

¶123

In support of their submissions the learned advocates have relied upon the above referred judgment dated 30^th September 1997 (CWJC No. 2425 of 1994); the judgment in the matter of Rajeev Kamal [(CWJC No. 1862 of 1994, (Ranchi), decided on 23^rd November 1994]; and the judgments in the matters of Jagdish Parsad Sinha & Ors. Vs. Bhagwat Prasad & Ors. (AIR 1989 SC 1794) ; of Bandhu Prasad Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. [1994 (2) PLJR 279] ; of R.S. Ajara & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. [(1997) 3 SCC 641] ; of Chairman, Railway Board and Ors. Vs. C.R. Rangadhamaiah & Ors. [(1997) 6 SCC 623] ; of St. Johns Teachers Training Institute Vs. Regional Director, National Council for Teacher Education & Anr. [(2003) 3 SCC 321] ; of State of T.N. & Anr. Vs. P. Krishnamurthy & Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 517] and of Balco Captive Power Plant Mazdoor Sangh & Anr. Vs. National Thermal Power Corporation & Ors. [(2007) 14 SCC 234] .

¶124

In the above referred judgment (CWJC no. 2445 of

¶125

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶126

13/16

¶127

1994), this Court did hold, “ No difference was made between two sets of lecturers except that while lecturers of Government schools were placed in the cadre of subordinate Education Service (Selection grade) the lecturers of Nationalised schools kept separated as ex-cadre to the subordinate Education Service cadre posts. ”

¶128

We may, however, note that the matter at issue was the parity of pay between the two groups of +2 lecturers; one appointed in the Government Schools and the other appointed in the Nationalised Schools. The Court was not posed with the question whether or not the said posts were encadered in Bihar Subordinate Educational Service. The above observation made by the Court was, therefore, an obiter dictum and cannot be treated as ratio decidendi .

¶129

We are agonized to note that these are but a few Writ Petitions in a string of Writ Petitions filed in the subject matter. This line of litigation is generated on account of indecisiveness of the State Government and its fluctuating policy. We are also at pains to note that the State Government not only does not have a firm policy insofar as the education in the State of Bihar is concerned; it has gone on taking decisions as it suits at the relevant time. In the Writ Petitions filed before this Court also, the State Government has taken self-contradictory defense from time to time.

¶130

Article 790 of the Bihar Education Code deals with the pay of Subordinate Educational Service. It reads as under:-

¶131

“ 790. Pay of the Subordinate Educational Service. - The Subordinate Educational Service has three branches –

¶132

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶133

14/16

¶134

(i) Teaching staff of Government Boy’s Schools (Zila and Sarvodaya Schools) (ii) Inspecting Branch including Headmasters of Basic schools and Lecturers in Primary Teacher’s Education Colleges and (iii) Women’s branch – Teachers in Govt. Girl’s High and Plus two secondary schools, lecturers in women’s Primary Teacher’s Education Colleges, Deputy Inspectors of Schools and Headmistresses of Government Girl’s Middle Schools.

¶135

…………………………………………………. ”. Clause (iii) of the aforesaid Article specifically refers to “ Plus two secondary schools ”.

¶136

The Advertisement No. 1/87 also while referring the lecturers in Plus two schools did specifically mention Subordinate Educational Service. Hence, it cannot be gainsaid that the Plus two secondary schools were always a part of Subordinate Educational Service. Further the Advertisement No. 1/87 also specifically referred to the vacancies in the Government and the Nationalized (Taken Over) Schools. While making appointment of the lecturers in Plus two schools, under orders made in January 1990, the selected candidates were posted in the Government or the Nationalized Schools randomly. It is not the case of the State Government that the option was offered to the concerned candidates or that the posting in the Government or the Nationalized Schools were made on some definite principle. We will, therefore, not hesitate in holding that the posting in the Government or the Nationalized Schools at the relevant time was

¶137

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶138

15/16

¶139

fortuitous and the rights of the Plus two lecturers would not depend upon their posting in the Government or the Nationalized Schools.

¶140

We are alive that in the appointment order the State Government did make specific reference to ex-cadre post. However, mere mention of ex-cadre post in the appointment order or lack of decision in assimilating the Plus two schools lecturers in the mainstream of teachers would not deprive them of their legitimate rights.

¶141

It is apparent that the order 16^th October 2006 has been made and the Notification dated 23^rd June 2009 has been issued by the State Government without considering the relevant factors and it displays total lack of application of mind. As recorded hereinabove, the Plus two lecturers were always part of the Subordinate Educational Service. Such lecturers could not have been deprived of the right as members of the Subordinate Educational Service by artificially grouping them with the teachers in the Nationalized Schools.

¶142

For the aforesaid reasons, we hold that the Plus two lecturers in the Government and the Nationalized (Taken Over) Secondary Schools appointed pursuant to Advertisement No. 1/87 and selected by the Board were always part of the Subordinate Educational Service and that they are entitled to the benefits as the members of the Subordinate Educational Service. The encadrement of the Plus two lecturers with the teachers in the Nationalized Schools under Notification dated 23^rd June 2009 is bad and illegal. The Notification dated 23^rd June 2009 has been issued without application of mind and without considering Article 790 of the Bihar Education Code, the Government

¶143

Patna High Court CWJC No.14009 of 2006 (38) dt. 30-04-2013

¶144

16/16

¶145

decision dated 7^th July 1985 and the Advertisement No. 1/87. The impugned order dated 16^th October 2006 and the Notification dated 23^rd June 2009 are quashed and set aside.

¶146

The petitioners and other Plus two lecturers appointed pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/87 are indeed the members of the Subordinate Educational Service. The petitioners are entitled to the service benefits as the members of the Subordinate Educational Service. The State Government will treat the petitioners and the other Plus two lecturers appointed pursuant to the Advertisement No. 1/87 as the members of the Subordinate Educational Service and will extend the service benefits as the members of the Subordinate Educational Service. All other legal consequences shall follow.

¶147

The State Government will make orders, as may be required to comply with the above directions, within one year from today.

¶148

The petitions are allowed in the above terms.

¶149

The Registry will send copy of this judgment to the respondent State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department forthwith.

¶150

Sd/-

¶151

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶152

Birendra Prasad Verma, J. - I agree.

¶153

Sd/-

¶154

AFR Dilip.

¶155

(Birendra Prasad Verma, J)

Prabin Chandra Singh v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Prabin Chandra Singh 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Reliance Telecom Ltd. Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Deepti Pandey Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

M/S Princeton Niketan Pvt. Ltd. Vs the Chief Commissioner, Income

Dr.Sarwar Akram Khan and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anjana Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

The Union of India and Ors. Vs Ravindra Kumar Gupta