Dismissed

Dilip Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC9 May 2014CWJC/4668/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner sought appointment on compassionate grounds for a Class-4 post, arguing insufficient qualification for the only statutorily permissible post of Panchayat Teacher. The Court dismissed the application as authorities could not act contrary to Rule 10 of 2006 Rules which restricts teachers' dependents to Panchayat Teacher posts.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed on account of statutory bars under Rule 10 of 2006 Rules preventing appointment on other Class-4 posts.

Dilip Kumar Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4668 of 2014

¶2

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

¶3

Dilip Kumar Sinha, son of Late Savitri Devi, resident of Village- N.T.P.C. Colony, East from Shyama Kunj, East Ramkrishna Nagar, P.O. New Jaganpura, P.S. Ramkrishna Nagar, Dist. Patna 800027.

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar.

¶7

Principal Secretary, Human and Resources Department, Government of Bihar.

¶8

Director, Secondary Education, Human and Resources Department, Government of Bihar.

¶9

Deputy Director, Secondary Education Board, Budha Marg, Patna 800001.

¶10

Programme Officer, Collectoriate, Patna 800001.

¶11

District Magistrate, Patna Collectoriate, Patna.

¶12

Principal, Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidhyalaya, Patna City.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

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

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Chandra Bhushan Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. M.K.Singh, SC-6

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 09-05-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶18

The mother of the petitioner, a government servant in

¶19

the sense that she was working on a Class-4 post (peon) in a Rajkiya Kanya Madhya Vidhlaya, Patna City, is said to have died in harness on 27.6.2009. The petitioner, thereafter, had filed his application for appointment on compassionate ground. It appears that when his case was not considered for a long time, he had filed a writ application, CWJC No. 10898 of 2011, which was disposed of by an order dated 22.2.2012 directing the District Compassionate Appointment Committee to consider the case of

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.4668 of 2014 (2) dt.09-05-2014

¶21

¶22

the petitioner. The District Compassionate Appointment Committee by this time has already lost its power to make any recommendation for appointment of the wards/dependent of a teacher in view of Rule 10 of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rule had remitted the matter back and when the matter was taken up in contempt, the proceeding was dropped by giving liberty to the petitioner to assail the decision of the respondents as with regard to the post offered to him.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was offered the post of Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher, subject to fulfillment of his educational qualification, which is Intermediate. Learned counsel for the petitioner explains that the petitioner has only qualification of Madhyama, which is equivalent to Matriculation and, therefore, he does not qualify for appointment on the post of Prakhand Teacher/Panchayat Teacher. He has, accordingly, submitted that the direction should be issued to the authorities to appoint him on a Class-4 post keeping in view his educational qualification.

¶24

This Court would find it difficult to issue any direction to this effect because of a clear provision made in the 2006 Rules limiting the consideration of any dependent of a teaching/nonteaching employee of a nationalized school on any other post

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.4668 of 2014 (2) dt.09-05-2014

¶26

¶27

except Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher. To that extent, Rule

¶28

10 of 2006 Rules, being relevant, is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶29

^^ vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;kstu %&

¶30

f”k{kd@f”k{kdsrj dfeZ;ksa ds vkfJrksa dks vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk ds vuq:i iapk;r f”k{kd@iz[k.M f”k{kd ds in ij miyC/k fjfDr;ksa ds fo:) fu;kstu fd;k tk ldsxkA ;fn os Li’V :i ls blds fy, viuh lgefr nsrs gSaA fu;kstu ljdkj ds dkfeZd foHkkx }kjk vuqdEik ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr laca/kh fu/kkZfjr vU; “krksZa ds vkyksd esa mijksDr lfefr;ksa }kjk fd;k tk ldsxkA vizf”kf{kr vkfJrksa dks fu;kstu ds ckn mUgsa vf/kdre 6 o’kksZa ds vUnj izf”k{k.k izkIr dj ysuk vfuok;Z gksxkA**

¶31

Let it be noted that under Rule 20(i), the earlier Rule in this regard to appoint teacher in a primary school has already been repealed and now there is only possibility of appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher. To that extent,

¶32

Rule 20 of the Rule, being relevant, is quoted hereinbelow:-

¶33

^^20& fujlu ,oa O;ko`fRr %&

¶34

¼A½ bl fu;ekoyh ds izHkkoh gksus dh frfFk ls xzkeh.k {ks= esa izkjafHkd f'k{kdksa@'kkjhfjd f'k{kdksa@iapk;r f'k{kkfe= ds fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr iwoZ dh lHkh fu;ekoyh ladYi vkns'k vuqns'k vkfn fujLr ekus tk;saxsA

¶35

¼AA½ fdUrq bl fujlu ds gksrs gq, Hkh iwoZ ds fu;ekoyh ladYi vkns'k vuqns'k vkfn ds rgr fu;qDr f'k{kdksa ds osrukfn ,oa lsok 'kRrksZa ij bldk izHkko ugha iM+sxkA

¶36

¼AAA½ fdUrq iwoZ ds ifji=] vkns'k] vuqns'k ds vkyksd esa fu;ksftr ,oa dk;Zjr iapk;r f'k{kk fe= bl fu;ekoyh ds rgr iapk;r f'k{kd ds :i esa fu;ksftr ekus tk;sxsA**

¶37

Thus, as per the present scheme, the dependent of a teaching and non-teaching employee of a nationalized school can

¶38

Patna High Court CWJC No.4668 of 2014 (2) dt.09-05-2014

¶39

¶40

be offered appointment only against the post of Panchayat Teacher/Prakhand Teacher. This Court, therefore, cannot direct the respondents to act contrary to the rules by considering the post of the petitioner against a Class-4 post. By now, it is well settled that an appointment of any person on compassionate ground can be made only if there is a vacant sanctioned post. There is nothing on record to show that there is vacant sanctioned post against which the appointment of the petitioner was possible. The Apex Court has also made it clear times without number that for appointment on compassionate ground, no supernumerary post has to be created and such appointment can be made only if there is a vacant sanctioned post.

¶41

In view of the above, this Court though with reluctanance but, having regard to the provision of 2006 Rules, will have no option but to dismiss this writ application.

¶42

It is, ordered, accordingly.

¶43

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶44

Rishi/-

Dilip Kumar Sinha v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dilip Kumar Sinha 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

Nandu Thakur Vs The B.r.ambedkar Bihar University and Ors.

Prof. Anil Kumar Shrivastawa Vs The Veer Kunwar Singh University and Ors.

Sharwan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jai Narayan Mahto and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nimmi Upadhyay Vs D.a.v. College Management Committee and Ors.

Dinesh Prasad Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.