REKHTA SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these writ applications are taken up together as the same questions are involved in both the writ petitions.

(2.) In these writ petitions, challenge has been made regarding the Annexure- 5 dated 24-12-95, issued by the respondent No. 3. The question is with regard to the distinct caderisation of the appointments in the Elementary School and the Basic School and whether they should be taken into Divisional Cadre or not. The matter was decided long back by a Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 323 of 1991 and on the basis of that judgment, several other cases filed by the similarly situated persons as that of the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3097 of 1995 (R) and 3411 of 1995(R) had been allowed. The view taken by the Division Bench in C.W.J.C. No. 323 of 1991 was confirmed by the Apex Court, when the State of Bihar went in Special Leave Petition. Practically, after such decision, there remains no scope of issuance of any such letter by the respondent No. 3, rather the same would invite contemptuous action. Only because, a teacher or similarly situated persons of the same school have not come to the Court, his case should not be taken up in the same view as that of decided by the court and confirmed up to the Apex Court, cannot make those persons, who have not come up to the Court, to suffer, when others have been allowed to get the benefit. Hon'ble Apex Court has already held that when a decision has been arrived at in respect of a question when some persons have come to the Court, then the said decision would be applicable to all similarly persons and the authorities should not induce the similarly situated persons to come court again and again.

(3.) In that view of the matter, practically, issuance of Annexure-5 by the respondent No. 3 is contemptuous. However, this issuance of Annexure-5 has got no bearing and practically, nonest in the eye of law, in view of the decision already arrived at and being reiterated time and again by this Court in different cases. Recently, the same question has also been decided in C.W.J.C. No. 347 of 1996 (R) and C.W.J.C. No. 526 of 1996 (R). Thus, Annexure-5 in both the writ application is hereby quashed having non-est in the eye of law. Thus, both the writ petitions are allowed. Petitions Allowed.