VINOD KUMAR PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) It appears that the cause of action of the petitioners falls within the State of Jharkhand, though the impugned order has been passed before bifurcation of State by the Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Government of erstwhile Bihar. The matter has been defended by the State of Jharkhand through their counsel G.P.-V. It appears that the State of Jharkhand, Human Resources Development Department was not earlier impleaded as a party respondent in the present writ application though the prayer made in the writ petition has been contested on the part of the Government of Jharkhand. Therefore, the Human Resources Development Department through its Secretary, Government of Jharkhand is allowed to be impleaded as respondent no. 5 in the instant writ petition, for which necessary correction be carried out by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners during the course of the day in red ink at the relevant place in the main writ petition.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.

(3.) The issues involved in the present writ application has a pretty long chequered history with several events that have taken place since the petitioners were appointed in the year 1982. Presently, they are aggrieved with an office order contained in Memo dated 6th July, 2000 passed by the Secretary, Secondary, Primary and Adult Education Department, Government of Bihar, Annexure-30. Incidentally it is to be indicated herein itself that the order impugned was passed during the pendency of the Contempt Petition being M.J.C. No. 2352 of 1999 before the Patna High Court and pursuant to opportunity granted to the said Secretary (opposite party therein) vide order dated 04.04.2000 to show compliance of the Court's order in its letter and spirit. The Learned Single Judge was not satisfied that earlier order bearing Memo no. 782 dated 27.03.2000 passed by the same Secretary was in compliance of the judgment as he had chosen not to consider the evidences filed by the petitioners along with their representations in support of their claim that they had filed application in time in the year 1991.