DINESH PRASAD SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Enough of judicial time as well administrative time has been wasted on frivolous writ applications being filed by the petitioner time and again when he had no case in the very first place. This Court has reason to observe as above looking at the history of the initial appointment of the petitioner, his continuance in service and then superannuation.

(2.) There is no dispute that even though the petitioner was a graduate he was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in matric trained scale in the year 1980, which post he accepted, joined and worked continuously. After more than two decades when superannuation neared, petitioner chanced upon some kind of policy decision of the State Government where graduate teachers could be appointed as graduate teachers, therefore, he decided to file a writ application in the year 2001, which was registered as CWJC No.11206 of 2001, disposed of on 12.9.2001. The Court would like to highlight that the appointment of the petitioner on matric trained scale was on the basis of 1978 panel but appointed in the year 1980. A writ for the first time was filed in the year 2001. The learned Single Judge after considering all the matter refused to grant any relief to the petitioner as well as did not adjudicate in favour of the petitioner but allowed him to go before the Director, Primary Education, who would examine the grievance and pass an appropriate order The appropriate order is dated 8.4.2002 contained in Annexure- 9 where it has been clearly recorded by the Director that the petitioner was appointed as matric trained scale and after more than 20 years he wants his appointment to be changed to graduate trained scale. In the opinion of the Court, a totally unreasonable prayer, expectation as well as the fact that such an indulgence could not be granted under any rule, law or service jurisprudence.

(3.) Naturally, the matter should have rested after passing of Annexure-9 but petitioner is very persistent in his approach. He decides to file yet another writ application, which was CWJC No.13463 of 2002. The order passed in the writ application is Annexure- 10, dated 29.06.2010. This writ application was again permitted to be withdrawn to seek internal remedy. What kind of internal remedy was available or expected has not been indicated in the said order or not clarified by the petitioner before the Bench. In other words, the previous decision contained in Annexure- 9 was not interfered with even in terms of Annexure- 10 order.