STATE OF BIHAR Vs. RAJ MANGAL ROY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD learned counsel for the appellants and learned counsel for the sole respondent (writ petitioner).

(2.) THE stand of the appellants is that the judgment and order of the writ court under appeal suffers from error of law inasmuch as the writ court failed to consider that the Ordinance No. 32 dated 18.12.1989 by which the State had decided to take over 491 Sanskrit Schools including the school in question lapsed on 1.5.1992 and therefore the liability of the State of Bihar to pay for the teachers of such schools also ceased. High Court Of Judicature At Patna It has further been submitted that the learned single Judge erred in not appreciating that the staffing pattern (Manak Mandal) introduced through Ordinance No. 32 dated 18.12.1989 stipulated only 7 teaching staff which did not include a science teacher and therefore no sanction could have been granted to the post of science teacher held by the writ petitioner.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the appellants has placed reliance upon a Division Bench order dated 13.2.1996 passed in a contempt matter bearing M.J.C. No. 1206 of 1994. The said order has been annexed as annexure -2 with memo of this Letters Patent Appeal.. Paragraph -6 of the said order also holds that teachers like the writ petitioner will be entitled to the payment of salary and allowances at the old scale to which they were entitled as if Ordinances were never passed. The judgment under appeal does not decide the scale in which the writ petitioner should be paid. Hence there is no conflict between the aforesaid order of the Division Bench and the judgment under appeal.