SURENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the State.

(2.) The petitioners are aggrieved by the common order dated 20.11.1992 of the District Superintendent of Education, West Chamaran at Bettiah. It cancels their appointment on the higher B.Sc. trained scale made on 12.06.1986 and orders recovery of the financial benefits given to them there under. The petitioners are stated to be holding the qualification of B.Sc. trained. They came to be appointed on 10.12.1981 in the Matric trained scale in a Middle School in West Champaran. On 20.2.1981, 2300 posts of Science teachers are stated to have been created for up till class VIII. Consequently, 1150 of these posts were reserved for I. Sc. trained scale and 1150 posts for B.Sc. trained scale. In pursuance of the same, 50 posts of Science teachers were given to the District of West Champaran. This included 25 posts of I.Sc. Trained scale and 25 posts for B.Sc. trained scale.

(3.) On 12.06.1986, the Establishment Committee considered the cases of the petitioners alongwith several others and recommended the grant of B.Sc. trained scale to them. One Sri Lal Bahadur Singh came to this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 3064 of 1991 with a grievance that the persons junior to him in length of service have been given the senior pay-scale but his case has not been considered. This Court on 11.07.1991 simply directed the authorities to examine his grievance in accordance with law. This has led to the impugned order dated 20.11.1992 against the petitioners, cancelling the B.Sc. trained scale granted to them. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that even after consideration of his case, Sri Lal Bahadur Singh has been granted no relief. It is next urged that before issuing the impugned order dated 20.11.1992 no notice was given to the petitioners or opportunity to defend the benefit granted given. This is specifically asserted in paragraph no.22 of the writ petition not denied in the counter-affidavit. He next submits that there is no consideration in the impugned order why the deliberations of the Establishment Committee dated 12.06.1986 were not in accordance with law and neither the counter-affidavit even attempts to explain or discuss the alleged illegality in the resolution of the Establishment Committee dated 12.06.1986.