IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.9727 of 1993
RAMESH MISHRA
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
10 29.04.2011 The dispute in the present case is, whether pursuant to
the newspaper advertisement, as contained in Annexure-1, petitioner
was selected for appointment to the school in question or not.
Petitioner has annexed the resolution of the Managing Committee
showing his selection, his appointment letter and letter to the Secretary
Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for granting approval to the petitioner’s
appointment. These are all of the year 1983. Respondent no.7 comes
into picture in 1984 and is forced transferee by the Board to the school
of the petitioner. While considering the appointment of petitioner, the
Managing Committee of the school was simultaneously considering
the appointment of respondent no.6, his appointment was also duly
approved by the Board.
At the first instance, the Chairman of the Sanskrit
Shiksha Board had ruled in favour of the petitioner clearly holding that
petitioner had first been selected for appointment and then respondent
no.7 was pushed in on transfer. The order he had passed was based on
finding recorded by him. The matter was taken in appeal by
respondent no.7, but without upsetting any finding of fact and virtually
on surmises, the appellate authority overruled the order of the
Chairman. The matter, thus, came to this Court and this Court
remanded the matter to the Chairman for finding out the facts and then
passing the order. It would have been very simple if the Chairman
-2-
instead of calling for evidences to be produced from the petitioner or
the respondent looked into his own office file to find out what were
the correspondences in that regards. Whether there was a
recommendation from the school in question in favour of two persons,
that is, respondent no.6 and the petitioner, as claimed by the petitioner
and the school in question or the recommendation was in respect of
one person alone. This simple piece of evidence within the folds of
the Board was never looked into though from the first order of the
Chairman it appears that it was never put in issue.
However, I direct the learned counsel for the Bihar
Sanskrit Shiksha Board to produce all correspondences with regard to
the appointment of petitioner, respondent no.6 and respondent no.7
under affidavit before this Court.
Put up this matter under the same heading on 19th May,
2011 at the top of the list for further hearing.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)