UPENDRA YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr. Rajeev Ranjan Sinha for the petitioners, Mr. Mohd. Arif, learned JC to Standing Counsel No. IV for respondent nos. 1 and 3 to 9, and Mr. M.M.P. Sinha for respondent no. 2 (Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board). Three petitioners, namely, Upendra Yadav, Sobhakant Yadav and Satya Narayan Yadav, have joined this writ petition seeking a common direction to quash the notification published in the Hindustan, a local daily, on 16.4.2007 (Annexure 1), whereby appointment of these three petitioners as Assistant Teachers have been cancelled. It is further directed against order no. 419, dt. 14.4.2007 (Annexure 9), whereby the services of these three petitioners, alongwith one more not relevant in the present context, have been dispensed with on the ground that the State Government has declined to grant recognition to the Ismail Karim Primary Teachers Training College, Chaknoor, Rahmatpur, district Samastipur (hereinafter referred to as 'the college '). Respondent No. 2 has placed on record its counter affidavit and has opposed the writ petition.

(2.) I have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The basic facts essential for the disposal of this writ petition are not in dispute and line in a narrow compass. The three petitioners are matriculates. Petitioner No.1 claims to have attended the Diploma Course in Education during the session 1985 -87, and petitioner nos. 2 and Claim to have attended the course during the session 1984 -86, in the said College. The petitioners intended to appear at the final examination to be held by respondent no. 2. It appears that they faced difficulties leading to CWJC No. 2900 of 1988 (Ismail Karim Teachers Training College & Another V/s. State of Bihar & Ors.). By interim order dated 31.5.88 (Annexure 3), a Division Bench of this Court directed respondent no. 2 to accept the fees and forms of those students in accordance with the prescribed rules, but their results shall not be published. In compliance of the said order dated 31.5.88 (Annexure 3), respondent no. 2 had issued admit cards to the petitioners and were allowed to appear at the examination. It further appears that the results were not published leading to CWJC No. 377 of 1992, which was disposed of by a Division Bench by order dated 15.1.92 (Annexure 3 series), whereby respondent No. 2 was directed ".....to publish the results of the training college for the sessions 1984 -86 to 1987 -89, which shall be subject to the recognition of the said college". 3. The Bihar Government in the Department of Primary, Secondary and Public Education, issued its communique dt. 8.1.94 (Annexure A), whereby it was notified that all the colleges mentioned therein including the college in question had not been recognized for the purposes of the diploma in question. Column No. 4 of this communique was communicated to the college, vide letter no. 286, dt. 29.6.92. It is thus manifest that the petitioners ' cause of action had arisen on 29.6.92, and surely on publication of the same on 8.1.94, whereas the writ petition was lodged in this Court on 30.4.2007. The writ petition suffers from unexplained delay, laches, negligence and acquiescence. This concludes matters.

(3.) IN deference to the submissions advanced on behalf of the learned counsel for the petitioners, however, I would briefly refer to the same. He has placed reliance on certain orders passed by Court. He has first of all referred to the order dated 30.7.91 (Annexure 7), passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 3655 of 1987, whereby the appeal was disposed of by a brief order, nor in the order. No details about the issues raised in that appeal has been set out in the writ petition. It appears on the face of it that the same related to a completely different examination and institution. The same does not, therefore, appear to be relevant in the present context.