JAGDISH PRASAD TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claims that he worked as ad-hoc Assistant Teacher between 8-3-1981 to 30-4-1981 and again from 31-8-1981 to 30-44982, that thereafter his services were dispensed with without assigning any reason and without affording any opportunity. He, therefore, filed an Application (O. A No. 967 of 1998) before the M. P. State Administrative Tribunal praying that he may be taken back into service. The said application was dismissed by the Tribunal by order dated 21-5-2002 for the reasons stated in its order passed on the same day in Raghunath Prasad Badgiya v. State of M. P. (O. A. No. 1310/1998 ). The petitioner has challenged the said order of the Tribunal in this writ petition filed on 11-3-2004 with a further prayer that he may be permitted to work in the post of Assistant Teacher with all back-wages and all consequential benefits by regularising his service from the date of initial appointment.

(2.) WHEN the said writ petition came up before the Division Bench on 11-8-2004, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner will be satisfied if the relief granted by a Division Bench of this Court, by order dated 4-11-2003 in W. P. No. 5238/2002 (S. K Nema v. State of M. P.) and connected cases filed against similar orders of the Tribunal is granted to him. The Division Bench found that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal 16 years after ceasing to be an ad hoc teacher. Therefore, the Division Bench was of the view that the Tribunal had rightly rejected the petition on the ground of limitation, delay and laches. However, the petitioner contended that in S. K. Nema, in similar circumstances, another Division Bench had granted certain relief and that decision was a binding precedent and he should also be granted similar relief, that is, (a) the respondents should consider his case for regularisation sympathetically by taking into account the fact that he was unemployed for several years; and (b) if he applies against any advertisement for selection of Assistant Teachers, the age limit for appoint- ment may be relaxed in his case.

(3.) THE Division Bench was of the view that S. K Nema was based more on sympathy than any principle of law and was not inclined to grant any relief in terms of S. K Nema. But as the said decision was cited as a binding precedent, to avoid any grievance that different Division Benches of the Court, dealt with similar matters differently, referred the matter to a Full Bench. The Division Bench made it clear that the reference was being made to the Full Bench without admitting the writ petition as the very question that arose for consideration was whether the writ petition should be entertained at all.