Md. Ghulam Rabbani v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2205 of 2020 ====================================================== Md. Ghulam Rabbani Son of Late Md. Shafi Ahmad Resident of VillageJahana, Police Station- Konch, District- Gaya. At present residing at Raja Bagicha, Rafiganj, District- Aurangabad.

... ... Petitioner

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar 2.

The Additional Chief Secretary-cum-the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 4.

The District Magistrate, Gaya.

5.

The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Magadh Division, Gaya. 6.

District Education Officer, Gaya.

7.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Education, Gaya. 8.

The Block Education Officer, Block- Konch, District- Gaya. 9.

The District Treasury Officer, Gaya.

... ... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner :

Mr.Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents :

Smt. Binita Singh SC 28 Mr. Nishant Kr. Jha, AC to SC 28 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY ORAL ORDER 20-02-2020 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the issue raised in the present writ application is no more res integra as the same issue was decided by the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in CWJC No. 7322 of 2017 (Abdus Samad Vs. The State of Bihar & others). The relevant part of the aforesaid order is quoted hereinbelow:-

Patna High Court CWJC No.2205 of 2020(2) dt.20-02-2020 2/2 "Considering the judgment of the Hon'ble Chief Justice Chagala of Bombay High Court in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in AIR 1954 Bom. 232 the court is of the view that petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of the respondents in belatedly sending the petitioner for in service training, the respondents are required to consider the case of the petitioner and if it is found that the petitioner has passed the training at the first instance, the interest of the petitioner should be protected. In view of the judgment of the Bombay High Court in All India Ground (Supra) as well as the decision of the Apex Court on similar line reported in AIR 1989 SC 1133.

In view of the above, the writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for grant of matric trained scale on completion of 3 years from the date of joining of the petitioner as he cannot be faulted in the matter of non-sending the petitioner for service training. Necessary decision in this regard may be taken by the respondents within a period of sixty days and consequential benefit should be extended to the petitioner within a further period of one month from the date of of such decision."

In order to maintain consistency, the present writ application is also disposed of in the same terms of the order dated 11.04.2018 passed in CWJC No. 7322 of 2017 (Abdus Samad Vs. The State of Bihar & others).

(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) BT/- U