IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No 12411 of 2004
1 Krishna Mohan Jha, son of late Chandra Nath Jha, resident of village -
Bishunpur, P S - Arer, District - Madhubani, at present working as Assistant
Techer in Sri Dineshwar Nath Sanskrit Ucchya Vidyalaya, Arer, P S - Arer,
District - Madhubani
2 Magnu Jha, son of late Hari Sundar Jha, resident of village - Mahinathpur, P S
- Basopatti, District - Madhubani
3 Subhkant Jha, son of late Janak Lal Jha, resident of village - Pachadhi, P S -
Pandaul, District - Madhubani
4 Mahadev Jha, son of late Bhup Narayan Jha, resident of village - Kakaraul, P
S - Rahika, District - Madhubani
5 Ramasharya Singh, son of Sri Jagnath Singh, resident of village - Ikil, P O -
Sonbarsha, P S - Navanagar, District - Buxar (Bihar), working as Assistant
Teacher in Guneshwar Rameshwarup Ramsagar Sanskrit Uchch Vidyalaya,
Mahinathpur, Via - Basopatti, P S - Basopatti, District - Madhubani
6 Bhavendra Jha, son of late Tripit Jha, resident of village - Pachadhi, P S -
Pandaul, District - Madhubani, at present working as Assistant Teacher,
Laxamiwati Sanskrit High School, Maharail, P S - Andharathadhi, District -
Madhubani
7 Suresh Jha, son of Shri Vedanand Jha, resident of village - Simari Navtol, P S
and P O - Raj Nagar, District - Madhubani
8 Ram Bhushan Mishra, son of late Jay Narain Mishra, resident of village and P
O - Sagarpur, P S - Pandaul, District - Madhubani
9 Ram Kumar Singh, son of late Rajendra Prasad Singh, At and P O - Raghopu
Balat, P S - Raj Nagar, District - Madhubani
10 Rohit Yadav Raman, son of late Ram Avtar Yadav, At and P O - Raghopur
Balat, P S - Rajnagar, District - Madhubani - Petitioners
Versus
1 The State of Bihar
2 The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat,
Patna
3 The Additional Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New
Secretariat, Patna
4 The Under Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar,
Patna
5 The Special Director (Sanskrit), Secondary and Adult Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna
6 The Chairman, Bihar Sanakrit Shiksha Board, Patna
7 The Secretary, Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna - Respondents
***
For the petitioners : Mr Vishwanath Pd Sinha, Sr Advocate with
M/s Yugal Kishore, Prabhash Ranjan
Thakur, Advocates
For the S t a t e : Mr M K Pathak, AC to GA 4
2
For the B o a r d : Mr Awadhesh Pd Sinha, Advocate
***
11 05.04.2011 The petitioners, 10 in number, are Teachers in different
subjects in various Sanskrit Schools in the State. They are aggrieved by
the letter of the State Government as contained in Memo No 966 dated
14.12.1995 (Annexure-17) which seeks to clarify the position that all the
posts of Teachers beyond the staffing pattern (Manak Mandal), upon the
Ordinance taking over the management and control of Sanskrit Schools
being issued, stood abolished. The Ordinance being Bihar Ordinance No
32 of 1989 being the Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit School
(Management and Control) Ordinance, 1989 was assented to by the
Governor on 16th December, 1989 and published in the Bihar Gazette on
18th December, 1989.
Counter affidavits and rejoinders have been filed. With
consent of parties, this writ application is heard at this stage itself for final
disposal.
In my view, it is not necessary to delve into rival
contentions inasmuch as the issue has squarely been decided by this Court
on several occasions including one of the last judgment being in the case
of Deo Shankar Jha and others -Versus- the State of Bihar and others
since reported in 2010 (4) PLJR 346. In the said decision, the relevant
part is contained in paragraphs-13 and 14 of the reports which is quoted
hereunder :
13. “The other issue is with regard
to the letter of the State
Government, as contained in
Memo No 966 dated
3
14.12.1995 (Annexure-1) to
CWJC No 216 of 1998. This
letter tries to create a piquant
situation. It states that the
Ordinance having recognized
in its Manak Mandal, lesser
sanctioned post, then what was
sanctioned earlier for this 429
Schools, the difference between
the two would be deemed to be
cancelled post. I may first
observe that as I have held
above, the Ordinance does not
say so as I have held above
Ordinance creates two classes
of Teachers, one who would
continue to get grant-in-aid
notwithstanding beyond the
sanction (Manak Mandal) of
the Ordinance and the other
who fell within the Manak
Mandal (staffing pattern) of
the Ordinance who would get
Government rates. There was
no question of cancellation of
the sanctions. Learned counsel
for the State submitted that at
least this letter can be taken to
be effective prospectively
cancelling the post after 14th
December, 1995. He states that
upto this date, all Teachers
whether Science or not, have
been paid. Effectively, Science
Teachers are to be excluded by
operation of this letter. In my
view, this letter assumes that
the effect of Ordinance was
cancellation of sanctioned post
beyond the Manak Mandal
which in fact is not the
intention of the Ordinance.
However, I may not be
required to deal on this aspect
any more as this issue has
recently been set at rest by a
Division Bench of this Court in
the case of The Bihar Sanskrit
Shiksha Board -Versus- the
State of Bihar & Others (LPA
No 656 of 2010) being
4
judgment dated 08.04.2010. In
that case, identical issue was
involved. A learned Single
Judge of this Court had
granted similar prayer of that
writ petitioner for payment of
his salary as a Science Teacher
after 1995. State and the
Board resisted on basis of this
very letter being Memo No 966
dated 14.12.1995. Learned
Single Judge held the said
letter to be ineffectual and in
words of the Division Bench a
dead letter as noted in
paragraph-8 thereof. If it is a
dead letter then nothing more
is required to be done but to
perform the last rites thereof
and forget about it as if that
letter never existed. If the
letter did not exist then the
position would be in view of the
judgment of the Division
Bench and what I have held
earlier that all Science
Teachers and all Teachers,
whose services were approved
being on sanctioned post prior
to the Ordinance or whose
posts was sanctioned and
services approved during the
Ordinance period, would be
deemed to be Teachers entitled
to Government grant-in-aid at
the rate that were being paid
prior to the Ordinance subject
to such increments which may
be due.
14. On similar reasoning, a similar
letter of the State Government
being issued under Memo No
1056 dated 21.12.1995 which
deals with purported
cancellation of Primary
Teacher posts which were
sanctioned by letter No 957
dated 18.11.1989 cannot also
stand because the import of
this letter is identical to that of
5
the letter dated 14th December,
1995 which the Division Bench
has already held to be a dead
letter. This letter of 1995 is
also a dead letter.”
Thus, the impugned letter under Memo No 966 dated
14.12.1995 (Annexure-17) being a dead letter is quashed as such. The
position would be that all those Teachers, who were working on duly
sanctioned post prior to Ordinance aforesaid, would continue and cannot
be deemed to be dismissed and would be required to be paid their
remunerations from the grant-in-aid which is required to be given by the
State to the Schools.
The writ application is, thus, allowed in the same terms as
the aforesaid judgment in the case of Deo Shankar Jha (supra) and it is
expected that the dues of the petitioners would be paid at the earliest but
not later than three months from today.
M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)