OM PRAKASH PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We are utterly dismayed over the cavalier way this writ application has been drafted, and despite this Court's observation at the very commencement of hearing the case in the wake of the nature of relief sought for in the present writ application, the matter has been argued by learned counsel for the petitioner. This writ application has been filed seeking direction to the respondent authorities to frame rules/policy for the employees of the Gram Panchayats in view of Article 243H of the Constitution of India and in the light of a 'judgment' delivered by this Court on 11/12/2013 passed in CWJC No. 3689 of 2012 (Rajendra Prasad Choudhary Vs. State of Bihar and Ors.). At the very outset, this Court pointed out to learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ranjit Kumar that this Court exercising power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not issue a writ in the nature of Mandamus requiring the State Government to frame statutory rules or amend statutory rules in view of the law clearly laid down by the Supreme Court in this regard.

(2.) Mr. Ranjit Kumar, learned counsel, disregarding such clear observation made by this Court took us to the said order of this Court dtd. 11/2/2013 passed in CWJC No. 3689 of 2012 and other analogous matters with reference to Article 234H of Constitution of India. Unfortunately, the said order of this Court dtd. 11/12/2013 has been described in the writ petition as this Court's Judgment, which it is not.

(3.) It is noteworthy that the said order of this Court in the case of Rajendra Prasad Choudhary (supra) is apparently an interim order. There is no disclosure in the writ petition as to what was the final outcome of the proceedings arising out of the said proceeding. Only upon an enquiry made by this Court, it has emerged that the said batch of writ applications has been disposed of by an order dtd. 19/6/2013 with the following direction and observation:-