NAND KISHORE OJHA Vs. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By our order dated 19th January, 2011, we had at the invitation of the parties and in order to put an end to the disputes, appointed Mr. Justice V.A. Mohta, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, who retired as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, to be the Special Officer, in whose presence the order of 19th January, 2011, could be worked out. However, the matter was mentioned by the learned Special Officer on 18th February, 2011, not before this Bench, but before the other regular Bench, and the matter was directed to be listed today, for considering the submissions made by the learned Special Officer. In fact, the matter had been mentioned on account of the personal difficulties of the Special Officer so appointed, with a request to relieve him of the assignment.

(2.) Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and in view of the fact that it may be more convenient for a retired Judge of a nearby High Court, who is also acquainted with the affairs in Bihar, to discharge the functions as entrusted to the Special Officer under our order of 19th January, 2011, we consider it appropriate to appoint Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya, a retired Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, residing at "Peace Cottage", 58, North Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand), as Special Officer in place of Mr. Justice V.A. Mohta. All other portions of the order dated 19th January, 2011, will remain in place. The learned Special Officer will be entitled to arrange his own schedule in consultation with Mr. Gopal Singh and Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, representing the State of Bihar and group of teachers. Both the learned Advocates will be at liberty to approach Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya for the said purpose.

(3.) In addition to the above, a suggestion has been made by Mr. R.P. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the Petitioners, that the burden of the Special Officer could be lightened, if certain steps are taken by the State authorities, prior to consideration of the matter by the Special Officer. He has indicated that those candidates, who had obtained certificates from fake Institutes, could be identified in relation to the Institutes themselves, and a list of such candidates could be prepared separately. It has also been suggested that those candidates, if appointed, who would have less than one year in service, could also be segregated to consider the relief that could be provided to them. A further submission was that one applicant may have made several applications. The same could also be dealt with so that only one of the applications which were complete in all respects, could be taken up for consideration in respect of that applicant. The rest of applications could be rejected.