HIRA MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) TEACHERS of elementary schools posted in different districts have filed separate writ petitions because their cadre is district based. Otherwise all these writ petitions (13 in number) arise from the same set of facts and circumstances and make common prayers. All these cases were, therefore, heard together and are being disposed of by this common order.

(2.) THOUGH the petitioners in different cases of this batch are represented by different counsel, the leading argument was advanced by Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Counsel appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 8645 of 2001. which was filed by the teachers posted in the district of Darbhanga. But the counter affidavits on behalf of the State were filed in another case of the batch, being C.W.J.C. No. 12667 of 2001; the States affidavits filed in this case were taken into consideration in all other cases of the batch. In this judgment, therefore, the records of C.W.J.C. No. 8645 of 2001 are used for stating the relevant facts and referring to the annexures; for taking note of the stand of the State Government, reference is made to the records of C.W.J.C. No. 12667 of 2001 in which the States affidavits were filed.

(3.) THE grievance of the petitioners in all these cases is that though they were appointed as teachers of elementary schools, which were taken over by the State Government under the Bihar Non - Government Elementary Schools (Taking Over Ordinance), 1976 (later made into Act 30 of 1976), on the basis of an order issued by the Commissioner cum Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Education Department, Government of Bihar they were being posted against posts created under the District Primary Education Project III (DPEP III) in schools set up under the aforesaid project. According to the petitioners the schools under the DPEP III project were set up by, or atleast with the aid of, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act under the name of Bihar Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad for implementation of the Bihar Education Project. The petitioners understand that on the basis of financial aid, extended for a limited time, by some international funding agencies and the Central Government, the Parishad was assigned education project which inter alia aimed at providing alternative schooling and special education programme to enhance the delivery of project benefits particularly to the socially disadvantage group children. The project envisaged construction of a large number of new schools, teachers of which would be paid their salary by the Parishad from the funds received by it, for a limited time, from the international agencies and the Central Government. The petitioners pointed out that the Parishad was no part of the State Government; it was a body completely distinct and separate from the State Government, and it was held by this court in its decision, dated 23.9.1999 in C.W.J.C. No. 8822 of 1997 (Birgu Paswan V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.) that the Parishad was not even "State" within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution. In these premises it was contended on behalf of the petitioners that the impugned direction for posting them in DPEP III project schools amounted not only to post them outside their cadre but to hand over their services to an altogether different body, as their employer. This was clearly impermissible in law. The worst fear of the petitioners is that once the funds stopped coming to the Parishad after the expiry of the project period, no salary will be paid to them and for all intent and purposes they will find themselves out of service. Then they will face the daunting prospect of trying to come back in the service of the State Government.