MAHENDRA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IT is most unfortunate that the officers of this State Government are trying to take the High Court for a ride and are ignoring the orders of the High Court and violating the spirit of the same to the hilt. Present is also a matter relating to wilful default on the part of the Officers and the authorities. On 3rd July, 2000 in C.W.J.C. No. 2473 of 1991 this Court directed the Secretary, Primary Education and the Director, Primary Education to consider the case of the petitioner for his appointment against a post of Subordinate Education Services (Primary Branch). This Court further directed the order of appointment be issued in favour of the petitioner against an existing vacancy, immediately, but not later than a period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This Court also observed that the petitioner would be entitled to salary from the prospective date of appointment, he will be entitled to count his seniority on the basis of his position as shown in the merit list.

(2.) AS usual the officers of this Government were not ready and willing to come out of their slumber rather from their hibernation. The wild beasts and the jungle animals when go to the winter sleep, they come out of it after a period of 4 -6 months but the Officers of this State go to a deep sleep rather to the suspended animation and they are required to be informed that they must come out of their slumber because under the orders of the High Court at least in some cases they have to discharge their duties. If on 3rd July, 2000 the High Court directed that the order be issued within two months then it was expected of the authorities i.e. the Secretary, Primary Education and the Director, Primary Education to issue necessary orders within two months. Some latitude could be given but lapses cannot be condoned. From the records it appears that up to July, 2002 the Secretary, Primary Education or the Director, Primary Education were not ready and willing to observe the orders passed by this Court.

(3.) THE matter was taken up for consideration on 13.1.2004. On that day the matter was to be adjourned and a direction was issued that a copy of the M.J.C. petition be supplied to the counsel for the Bihar Public Service Commission. The counsel appearing for the Bihar Public Service Commission does not have the copy of the recommendations made by the Secretary and the Director. On 12.2.2004 it was informed to this Court by learned counsel for B.P.S.C. that recommendations had already been sent by them to the State as back as on 16.12.2003. It appears that thereafter the order has been issued in favour of the petitioner on 14.2.2004.