RAM KRISHNA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The impugned order of the Director contained in Memo No.643 dated 4.8.2008 (Annexure-8) is a typical example of how even high functionaries of the Government also completely fail to appreciate letter and spirit of the orders of this Court and mechanically comply only operative part of the order to either ward off any possible contempt proceeding or to deliberately harass a citizen of the country and an employee of the Department only because he dared to move this Court for his statutory rights and legitimate claims. From the impugned order, it is apparent that, either the Director had not read the entire order of this Court passed in the earlier writ application of the petitioner, as contained in Annexure-5, or if he read it, he could not understand the discussions and observations of this Court in the order or, if he understood it, he deliberately ignored it and mechanically disposed of the representation of the petitioner without actually complying with the directions of this Court indicating the manner in which the case of the petitioner was to be examined afresh. If the attempt of the Director was to deliberately ignore the directions of this Court in this regard and to deliberately harass the petitioner and punish him for moving this Court for his legitimate claims, the same can clearly be termed as malafide.

(2.) While disposing of the earlier writ application of the petitioner by order as contained in Annexure-5, this Court had noticed the facts in detail and had noticed the submissions on behalf of the petitioner that as joining of the petitioner in the new School at Sohsarai on 23.5.1974 was well within 15 days and in fact only one day after he resigned from Raidih school, where he had initially joined on 11.4.1970, he was covered by Government Circular no.519 dated 2.7.1983 and hence was entitled for continuity of service, which was granted to him and was accordingly given due seniority in the final gradation list prepared at the State level from which he had been granted promotion to the post of headmaster by notification dated 24.12.2006. This Court noticed that on a complaint his promotion was sought to be cancelled, for which a notice was issued to him on altogether different grounds, but his promotion was actually cancelled on the ground that, in the light of Resolution contained in letter no.581 dated 15.1.1982, all schools had to be treated as independent unit and hence he was not entitled for continuity of service. This Court found that the ground of cancellation of his promotion was not put to the petitioner, giving him opportunity to meet the same, before it was made the basis for cancellation of his promotion. Hence, this Court quashed the order and allowed the writ application but with liberty to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner afresh and pass fresh orders.

(3.) This Court could have directed the respondents to take notice of the two Government Circulars/ Resolutions relied upon by either of the parties, as referred to above, and pass orders in their light. But it is well known that, for long time the Education Department of the State has been functioning on the basis of executive instructions/circulars/orders issued by its functionaries from time to time. Instances are that with the change of functionaries, circulars and orders also changed. There are instances galore that writ applications in this Court were considered and decided on the basis of one executive instruction/circular/order or the other, produced on behalf of the petitioner, only because the respondents appearing in the case failed to produce, for whatever reason, subsequent executive instructions/circulars/orders overriding the earlier one. Many a times, it also happened that one executive instruction/circular/order was made the basis for passing order in the case of one incumbent whereas altogether a different executive instruction/circular/order was made the basis for passing altogether a different order in case of another incumbent identically situated. This having in mind, while granting liberty to the respondents to examine the case of the petitioner afresh, this Court therefore required them "to examine the issue by referring to overall legal position as may be applicable in different facts and circumstances of a particular case" and also observed that "in case the respondents decide to undertake such an exercise, they shall take a uniform decision to be applicable in specific set of cases with identical facts and circumstances and shall not confine their decision to individual cases only." For the benefit of the respondents, it may be useful to reproduce paragraph 21 of the said earlier order of this Court passed in the earlier case of the petitioner: