Partly allowed

Brahmdeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC29 Sept 2016L.P.A/1756/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court held that delay in filing appeal was condonable. It modified the impugned order holding that directing reinstatement was unsustainable because the enquiry was unfair. The court quashed the reinstatement order and directed a fresh enquiry with adequate opportunity to parties.

What did the court decide?

Conditional delay condonation allowed for the appeal. Impugned order quashed and order directing fresh reinstatement quashed. Fresh enquiry directed.

Brahmdeo Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.1756 of 2015

¶3

Arising out of

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3941 of 2008

¶5

Along with

¶6

Interlocutory Application No.7884 of 2015

¶7

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

¶8

Brahmdeo Yadav, son of Sri Mahavir Yadav, resident of village Simraha, P.S. Kusheshwar Asthan, District –Darbhanga.

¶9

.... .... Respondent-Appellant

¶10

Versus

¶11

The State of Bihar.

¶12

The Secretary, Primary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶13

The Commissioner, Darbhanga Division, Darbhanga.

¶14

The District Magistrate, Darbhanga.

¶15

The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.

¶16

The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga.

¶17

The Block Development Officer-cum- Circle Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan, PS Kusheshwar Asthan, Darbhanga.

¶18

The Block Education Extension Officer, Darbhanga.

¶19

The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bisharia Mohim Bujurg, Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga.

¶20

The Panchayat Sevak-cum- Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bisharia Bujurg, Kusheshwar Asthan, District- Darbhanga.

¶21

The Head Master, Primary School, Mohim Bujurg, PS Kusheshwar Asthan, DistrictDarbhanga.

¶22

… … Respondents.

¶23

Santosh Kumar Poddar, son of Lal Babu Poddar, resident of village Mohim, P.S.Kusheshwar Asthan, District Darbhanga.

¶24

…. … Petitioner.

¶25

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

¶26

Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Singh, Advocate Mr. Ranjit Kumar Yadav, Advocate For the Respondents-State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, A.C. to G.A.-2

¶27

Patna High Court LPA No.1756 of 2015 dt.29-09-2016

¶28

2/4

¶29

For the Respondent No.12 : Mr. Jagdish Pd. Singh, Advocate

¶30

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA And HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA) Date: 29-09-2016

¶31

Re.: Interlocutory Application No.7884 of 2015

¶32

The application is for condonation of delay of 334 days in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶33

For the reasons mentioned in the application, we find that sufficient cause is made out for condonation of delay. Consequently, we condone the delay in filing of the present Letters Patent Appeal.

¶34

Interlocutory Application stands allowed accordingly.

¶35

Re.: Letters Patent Appeal No.1756 of 2015

¶36

The challenge in the present Letters Patent Appeal is to an order passed by the learned Single Bench of this Court on 13^th August, 2014 whereby, an order passed by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bisheria Mohim Bujurg cancelling the appointment of the writ applicants in the light of the joint order dated 3^rd January, 2008 passed by the Block Development Officer and Block Education Extension Officer, Kusheshwar Asthan was set aside. While setting aside the order, the learned Single Bench further ordered that the writ applicants shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits. The operative part of the order reads as under:

¶37

Patna High Court LPA No.1756 of 2015 dt.29-09-2016

¶38

3/4

¶39

“The orders dated 04.02.2008 as contained in annexure-6 to both these applications are also quashed. These applications are, accordingly, allowed. This will be, however, without prejudice to the rights of respondents to proceed afresh in accordance with law. The petitioners shall be reinstated in service forthwith with all consequential benefits.”

¶40

The writ applicants along with the present appellant were the candidates for appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher. The present appellant was appointed. Such appointment came to be disputed by the present writ applicants and one Md. Shamsul Hoda before the Block Development Officer. An enquiry was being conducted by the Block Development Officer. He has fixed, 11^th January, 2008 as the date fixed for enquiry as per the writ applicants, but the Block Development Officer furnished the report on 3^rd January, 2008 itself, therefore, the grievance of the writ applicants was that enquiry has been conducted against their back and, thus, not sustainable.

¶41

We find that after such finding that the writ applicants were not properly associated in the enquiry; there could not have been any direction to reinstate them. After such finding, the only natural consequence is to direct the appropriate authority to conclude the enquiry after giving adequate opportunity to the writ applicants and other affected persons. There could not be any direction to reinstate the writ applicants only because the enquiry conducted was not fair and

¶42

Patna High Court LPA No.1756 of 2015 dt.29-09-2016

¶43

4/4

¶44

reasonable.

¶45

In view of the said fact, the order passed by the learned Single Bench on 13^th August, 2014 is modified to the extent that the order of reinstatement of the writ applicants shall stand quashed. However, the official respondents shall proceed with the enquiry afresh and take appropriate decision in accordance with law.

¶46

With the aforesaid modification in the order, the Letters Patent Appeal stands disposed of.

¶47

(Hemant Gupta, J.)

¶48

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J.)

¶49

Sunil/-

¶50

AFR/NAFR N. A. F. R. CAV DATE N. A. Uploading Date 04.10.2016 Transmission Date

Brahmdeo Yadav v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Brahmdeo Yadav 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

Bijay Singh Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The State Of Bihar and Ors. Vs Ayodhya Paswan

Manoj Kumar Vs Rajendra Agricultural University and Ors.

Shankar Giri Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dilip Kumar Gupta Vs The Bihar School Examination Board and Ors.

Naulesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.