Allowed

Ramesh Kumar Yadav v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC30 Nov 2018CWJC/14272/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court allowed a writ petition challenging the refusal of recognition for services as a Peon in a Project School. Distinguishing prior precedents not considering Letter No. 142, the court held the cut-off date is the date the school was approved as a Project School (19.2.2009) and ordered the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim.

What did the court decide?

Directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's claim for recognition of services as approved by the coordinate bench in CWJC No. 17284 of 2011.

Ramesh Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2018)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14272 of 2014

¶2

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

¶3

Ramesh Kumar Yadav Son of Shree Munilal Yadav Peon, Project Girls High School Kumar Khand, Police Station - Kumar Khand, District - Madhepura.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through its Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.

¶7

The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Vikas Bhawan, Patna.

¶8

The Director (Secondary Education), Department of Education, Bihar Secondary Education Office, Budh Marg, Patna.

¶9

The District Education Officer, Madhepura.

¶10

... ... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijay Kumar Pandey, Advocate For the State : Mr. Vijay Kumar Verma, AC to GA-2

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL JUDGMENT

¶13

Date : 30-11-2018

¶14

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶15

The petitioner seeks quashing of the order contained in memo No. 250(P) dated 11.05.2010, Annexure-1, so far as it relates to the petitioner issued by the Director, Secondary Education refusing recognition of the services of the petitioner on the post of Peon in the Project School.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the claim of the petitioner has been rejected on the ground that he was appointed as Peon after 04.02.1989 which is the cut off date in the matter of Project School.

¶17

The issue with regard to Project School has been adjudicated by the Full Bench of this Court in the case of Project

¶18

Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2014 dt.30-11-2018 2/4

¶19

High School Teacher Association, reported in 2000(1) PLJR 287 which has been affirmed by the Apex Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 6626-75 of 2001. Neither the Full Bench nor the Apex Court has fixed the cut off date. In fact, in terms of the Letter No. 142, the respondents were required to select the school for taking over as Project School. In that process the three-men Committee was required to enquire into the infrastructure and other facilities available and thereafter on the recommendation of the three men Committee the District Magistrate is required to refer the matter for approval.

¶20

In the instant case the school in question was finally taken over as Project School on 19^th February, 2009. Prior to that date the school was not approved as Project school and no final decision was taken.

¶21

Mr. Vijay Kumar Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgment dated 14.09.2018 in CWJC No. 17284 of 2011 of this Court wherein this Court on consideration of the relevant materials and letter No. 142 dated 23.02.1985 held out that the cut off date is 19.2.2009 when project school in question was a reconized and approved as project school and accordingly, directed the respondents to consider the cse of the petitioner of that batch of cases for approval of their services

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2014 dt.30-11-2018 3/4

¶23

treating the cut off date as 19.2.2009. Similar is the fact situation in the present case and tas such for maintaining consistency, the Court is left with no option but to allow this writ application in similar terms as decided in CWJC No. 17284 of 2011 and analogous cases as the Court does not find any substance in the submission of the respondents that the cut off date is 4.2.1989.

¶24

The claim of one Anita Devi was rejected by a Coordinate Bench of this Court on 30.3.2012 in CWJC No. 17462 of 2011 and the decision of the Apex Court was upheld in LPA No. 903/2012. The LPA Court did not find any good reason to take a different view since the learned Single Bench as well as the LPA Court have not considered the effect of letter No. 142 dated 23.02.1985 which is crucial for the purpose of deciding the cut off date as before the actual selection and its approval by the State Government no school can be taken over and approved as Project school. Since this aspect of the matter was not considered by the writ court in the earlier proceeding the Court is of the view that the decision dated 14.9.2018 in CWJC No. 17284 of 2011 (Smt. Renu Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) is applicable in this case and the judgment relied upon by the respondents is not applicable to the present case as the same is not a decision on

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2014 dt.30-11-2018 4/4

¶26

consideration of the relevant provisions applicable to the Project

¶27

School.

¶28