Satya Narayan Yadav v. The State Of Bihar

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18070 of 2023 ====================================================== Satya Narayan Yadav Son Of Late Ram Prakash Yadav, Resident Of VillageParoriya, P.S.-Hasnpur, P.O.- Mangalgadh, District-Samastipur. ... ... Petitioner/s

Versus

1.

The State of Bihar through the Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2.

The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3.

The District Magistrate, Samastipur.

4.

The District Education Officer, District- Samastipur. 5.

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), District- Samastipur. 6.

The Block Education Officer, Block- Singhiya, District- Samastipur. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s :

Mr. Rajendra Narayan, Sr. Adv.

Mr. Bhola Kumar, Adv.

For the Respondent/s :

Mr.Subhash Chandra Mishra ( SC 16) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL ORDER 16-04-2024 I.A. No. 01 of 2024 This interlocutory application has been filed for making necessary corrections in the cause title as due to inadvertence and oversight, the address of respondent nos. 3 to 6 has been wrongly typed as District Jehanabad in place of District Samastipur.

2. For the reasons stated in the interlocutory application and after considering the submissions, this interlocutory application is allowed and the office is directed to insert the correct district name of respondent nos. 3 to 6. Re: C.W.J.C. No. 18070 of 2023

2/4

3. Heard senior learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner's case is squarely covered by a recent judgment dated 28.08.2023 delivered by the Division Bench of this Court in L.P.A. No. 1254 of 2016 arising out of C.W.J.C. No. 24355 of 2018 and other analogous cases.

5. Mr. Rajendra Narayan, learned senior counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner also figured in the list of 34,540 elementary teachers approved by the Hon'ble Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay (Retd.) Committee. He further submits that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has in it's judgment in SLP (Civil) No. 26824 of 2012 directed inter-alia as under:- "We make it clear that none of the persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should be disturbed in any way, but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into consideration, while disposing of the applications in question."

6. It is, in view of the aforementioned clarity given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in it's judgment, the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court has held in L.P.A. No.1254 of 2016 and other analogous matters that there could be no termination on the basis of a further verification. The views expressed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court may be

3/4 found in paragraph '16'as under:- "16. We are of the definite opinion that in the present case where all the party- respondents were appointed as per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, under the supervision of Justice Chattopadhyay, cannot be terminated on grounds of qualifications not having been properly verified; unless otherwise permitted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The party respondents were appointed after their eligibility being settled by Justice Chattopadhyay, appointed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, to oversee the selection and appointment of teachers to the vacant posts, identified as available, as per the undertaking made by the State before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Though the verification of credentials and qualifications of the candidates were directed to be done, there could be no such verification at this late stage. As noticed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned judgment the State ought to have been more vigilant when the appointments were carried out."

7. Subhash Chandra Mishra, learned SC-16 for the State is present. It is submitted that if the petitioner is appointees from the list of 34,540 candidates which was approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, then the Hon'ble Division Bench judgment would be applicable in her case as well.

8. Having regard to the submissions noted hereinabove, in view of the developments in the form of Hon'ble Division Bench judgment in L.P.A. No.1254 of 2016 and other

4/4 analogous cases, this Court sets aside the Annexure-3 of writ application and directs the respondents to consider the case of the petitioners keeping in view the Bihar Litigation Policy, 2011 in the light of the judgments of this Court rendered in L.P.A. No.1254 of 2016 and other analogous matters, L.P.A. No.1309 of 2017 and L.P.A. No. 1310 of 2017 and grants similar benefits to the petitioner as have been given to the other terminated teachers of the said list.

9. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

10. This writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J) devendra/- U