IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 10350 of 2010 1. SATYA PRAKASH MISHRA S/O SRI SARVENDRA MISHRA R/O VILL. & P.O.- DURGADIH, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT.- ROHTAS 2. KAMLESH KUMAR S/O SRI KARMU SINGH R/O VILL.- DHANPURWA, P.S.- SASARAM (M), DISTT.- ROHTAS 3. SAHENDRA KUMAR S/O SRI SHIVPUJAN SINGH R/O VILL.- PORA, P.O.- PARARI, P.S.- CHENARI, DISTT.- ROHTAS 4. SHRI RAM SINGH S/O RAM BRIKSH SINGH R/O VILL.- NYAY, P.O.- MURADABAD, P.S.- AGRER, DISTT.- ROHTAS 5. BIRENDRA SHARMA S/O LATE HARIDWAR SHARMA R/O VILL.- MACHWAR, P.O.- MALWAR, P.S.- SHEO SAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 3. THE DIRECTOR, HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, NEW SECRETARIAT, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING, MAHENDRU, PATNA-6 5. THE SECRETARY, STATE COUNCIL OF EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH AND TRAINING, MAHENDRU, PATNA-6 6. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS AT SASARAM 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, BIKRAMGANJ, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DISTT.- ROHTAS 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SASARAM, P.S.- SASARAM (T), DISTT.- ROHTAS 9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, CHANARI, P.S.- CHENARI, DISTT.- ROHTAS 10. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, SHEO SAGAR, P.S.- SHEO SAGAR, DISTT.- ROHTAS ----------- 4 23.08.2010 The five petitioners claim, with reference to details given in paragraph-4 of the writ petition, that they were appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and posted in various Schools immediately thereafter as such. Having been working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, in 2006, they were regularised as Primary Panchayat Shikshak under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Service Condition and Appointment) Rules 2006. They allege that the said Rules provide that upon completion of three years of service, they are eligible to sit for an internal departmental 2 examination known as Elementary Teachers Evaluation Examination and upon their passing of the said examination, they would be entitled to certain additional emoluments/remuneration. Petitioners state that in the year 2009, they were permitted to fill up the forms and the forms were deposited and, accordingly, admit cards were issued in their favour for the examination in question. They sat for the examination but their results were not being declared. Petitioners state that if they are declared failed in the 2009 examination, they have chance to sit in the 2010 examination for which forms are now being deposited but as the results are not being declared, they are handicapped in the matter. They state in their writ petition that they are told that the results are not being declared inasmuch as the Department is of the view that they have not completed three years of service which is the basic eligibility condition of sitting in the examination. This Court directed the respondents to file counter affidavit in the matter. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent No 4 by the Director, Bihar State Council for the Education, Research and Training which is the body conducting the examination and part of the Department. The stand is that as per the forms submitted by the petitioners themselves and forwarded by the District Superintendent of Education, it is now discovered that they had not completed three years of service and, as such, their results could not be declared as they were ineligible to sit in the examination. In reply to what is stated in paragraph-4 of the writ petition wherein full details of date of appointment, particular of appointment letter, date of joining, place of posting are given in respect of the five 3 petitioners. The counter affidavit is hopefully silent. It does not dispute those facts nor even there a suggestion that facts stated therein are not reliable in any manner. Thus, a technical plea is taken that there were some entries in the form which showed that they had not completed three years and, therefore, their results were not being declared. How they were permitted to take the examination is also not explained. Admit Cards were issued which gave all the particulars. Thus, from acceptance of the form, issuance of admit card, at no point, it was said that petitioners were not eligible. The basic fact, as pleaded in paragraph-4 of the writ petition specifically, is not contradicted in the counter affidavit. The question is what then the plea of the respondents is? In my view, the plea is pure technicality and if I may say so hyper technicality. The petitioners were employees under the State. It is only such employees who are permitted to take this examination. It is only such employees, who have completed three years, can even fill up the forms. It is not in dispute that the petitioners filled up the form which was forwarded by the District Superintendent of Education. Having received the forms, admit cards were issued to them. At no point of time, they were estopped. The reason is simple because everyone knew, what to talk of three years, they have all completed four years of service and now on this hyper technicality, their results are withheld. In this connection, I can only refer to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Mangalore Chemicals and Fertilisers Limited –Versus- Deputy Commissioner of Commercial Taxes, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 152 and, in particular, what is noted in paragraph - 11 thereof : “11. … … … The answer to this is in 4 the words of Lord Denning: “Now I know that a public authority cannot be estopped from doing its public duty, but I do think it can be estopped from relying on a technicality and this is a technicality” … … … Francis Bennion in his “Statutory Interpretation”, 1984 edition, says at page 683 : “Unnecessary technicality : Modern courts seek to cut down technicalities attendant upon a statutory procedure where these cannot be shown to be necessary to the fulfilment of the purposes of the legislation.” In view of the facts aforesaid, it is clear that it remains undisputed and uncontroverted that petitioners were fully eligible for the examination. They appeared. Having done so now it is too late to deny them the results especially in view of what the Supreme Court said in the case of Shri Krishan –Versus- Kurukshetra University, AIR 1976 Supreme Court 376. The writ petition is, thus, allowed. Respondents are directed to immediately, within 15 days, publish the results of the petitioners for the said examination as were held in the year 2009. In case any of them have failed, they must be intimated so that they may immediately fill up the form for the examinations which are to be held in the year, 2010. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)