RAM ASHRAY MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two writ applications have been heard analogous and this judgment will govern both of them.

(2.) Earlier also these writ applications had come up for decision before a Bench presided over by B.N. Agrawal, J. (as he then was) and by an order dated 21st December, 1998 the aforesaid Bench had allowed the two writ applications and had quashed the Annexures under challenge. Against this judgment and order passed by this Court the respondents went to Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 4477 -4478/1999. Before the Hon'ble Supreme Court appellant No. 1 Binod Kumar Gupta was respondent No. 4 in C.W.J.C. No. 3691/91 and respondent No. 1, Ram Ashray Mahto was petitioner No. 1 in C.W.J.C. No. 1253/91. The Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the order passed by the aforesaid Bench of this Court and remitted back the matter for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what was observed in the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court. This is how these two writ applications again came up before this Bench for decision.

(3.) While disposing of the Civil Appeal Nos. 4477 -4478/1999 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the judgment has observed as follows: On behalf of the appellants it is contended that even de -hors the said Rules their appointments are valid while the contention of the contesting respondents is that even without reference to the said Rules appointments of appellants are invalid and that there is no challenge to the said Rules in the petitions. In the circumstances, the. High Court ought to have examined the contentions put -forth in the petitions on the respective stands taken by the appellants/respondents in the course of the proceedings before it. We find force in the contentions made on behalf of appellants and contesting respondents that the High Court has not examined their contentions at all. Therefore, we set aside the order made by the High Court and remit the matters for fresh consideration in accordance with law and in the light of what we have stated above...... Before making the aforesaid observations the Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to Rules 73 to 77 of the Civil Court Rules which were held to be invalid by this Court in the case of Md. Saghir and Ors. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. 1994(2) PUR 427 and Md. Sohrab and Ors. v. The High Court of Judicature at Patna and Ors. in C.W.J.C. No. 522 of 1991, disposed of on 12th July, 1995 according to which Rules 73 to 77 of the Civil Court Rules were held to be invalid and it was on this ground along that this Court had passed the impugned judgment against which the aforesaid appeal was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.