SUKHDEO MUNDA Vs. CHIEF MANAGING DIRECTOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and/or video quality.

(2.) The instant intra-Court appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is directed against the order/judgment dtd. 1/8/2018 passed by learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 2420 of 2016 whereby and whereunder the writ petition has been dismissed refusing to issue direction upon the respondents to enact the Rule or formulate statutory schemes for regularization of the writ petitioners in view of the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in Secretary, State of Karnataka and Ors. v. Umadevi and Ors. [(2006) 4 SCC 1] as well as in view of the judgment of this Court in Ramesh Mahto v. State of Jharkhand decided on 31/7/2012.

(3.) The brief facts of the case which need to be enumerated herein, read as under :- The Bihar State Electricity Board, Patna through its Director (Personnel), has issued office order being Office Order No. 3935/FB Patna dtd. 29/9/1984 by which the post of Headmaster and Assistant Teachers were created in Subernrekha Hydel Power Project Middle School, Sikidiri, Ranchi. Later on, one another office order No.4537, dtd. 9/7/1991 was issued by which sanction has been accorded for up-gradation of Board's Middle School, Subernrekha Hydel Power Project, Sikidiri, Ranchi into High School in which one post of Head Master and 10 posts of Assistant Teacher were sanctioned for High School, Subernrekha Hydel Power Project, Sikidiri, Ranchi. The General Manager-cum- Chief Engineer, Swarnrekha Hydel Power Project, Sikidiri has issued a letter on 24/1/2003 addressed to the Chairman Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Ranchi, as it then was, requesting for giving sympathetic consideration on the request of Teachers and acting thereupon, the Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board wrote a letter to the Project Manager, Swarnrekha Hydel Power Project, Sikidiri whereby the teachers who were proposed to be engaged on contractual basis as per decision taken, were called for vide letter No.422 dtd. 5/2/2002. In pursuance of the above said letter, the Project Manager, Swarnrekha Hydel Power Project, Sikidiri, Ranchi wrote a letter to the Secretary, Jharkhand State Electricity Board, Engineering Bhawan, Dhurwa, Ranchi and a list containing the names of person looking after the teaching work since long, was sent for sympathetic consideration and needful action. The writ petitioners, after waiting for considerable period, when their grievance for regularization in service was not redressed even though the Hon'ble Apex Court pronounced a judgment in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (Supra) and this Court in Ramesh Mahto v. State of Jharkhand (Supra), filed a writ petition before this Court seeking appropriate direction for their regularization in service in terms of ratio laid down in the aforesaid judgments. The respondents had appeared and contested the case by taking the plea that the case of the writ petitioners are not coming under the fold of either the judgments rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (Supra) of this Court in Ramesh Mahto v. State of Jharkhand (Supra). It has been contended that the writ petitioners are working on the fixed honorarium/Mandey and not as permanent employees under the respondent-authorities and further, they were not engaged by following due procedure of regular and contractual appointment and also as there is no sanctioned post of teachers and therefore, question of vacant post of Assistant Teachers does not arise. It has been contended that the petitioners since are working as teachers that too on contractual basis, there is no question of applicability of judgment rendered by Hon'ble Apex Court in Secretary, State of Karnataka & Ors. v. Umadevi & Ors. (Supra). The learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration the rival submissions advanced on their behalf and considering the nature of appointment of the petitioners, has dismissed the writ petition against which the present intra- court appeal has been filed.