IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1467 of 2010 1. SHEO NANDAN SHAHU S/O LATE BHATU SHAHU R/O VILL- TETARI, P.O. TETARI, P.S. BALIA, DISTT. BEGUSARAI Versus 1. THE STAE OF BIHAR THROUGH SECRETARY DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES, 2. THE DIRECTOR DEPTT. OF PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE KHAGARIA 4. DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER KHAGARIA 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION KHAGARIA 6. BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER ALLAULI, DISTT. KHAGARIA 7. THE HEADMASTER GOVT. MIDDLE SCHOOL, SHAMBHU GANJ GHAT IN BLOCK- ALLAULI, P.S. ALLAULI, DISTT. KHAGARIA 8. BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK ALLOULI, DISTT. KHAGARIA ----------- 2 1.7.2010 Petitioner had applied for appointment to the post of Block Teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006 at Allouli in the district of Khagaria as Physical Trained Teacher . He was duly selected against unreserved post in the Selection Meeting dated 29.11.2007. This meeting had got delayed because of unprecedented flood in Khagaria district where all district authorities were busy in flood relief work. The selection having been completed, the documents were verified on 6.12.2007 and on the same very day petitioner was issued appointment letter. He was asked to join immediately and on the very next day, he gave his joining, which was duly accepted. Being now an 2 employee as a Physical trained teacher, he was assigned various official works including training and working as booth level officer but regrettably as no payment was being made to him, he came to this Court in CWJC No. 14834 of 2008, which was disposed of on 15.4.2009 with a liberty to the petitioner to make representation before the authority, who was directed to consider the representation and pay legitimate due to him. It was further ordered that if there was any adverse against the petitioner for non payment of salary, the reason must be disclosed. Petitioner asserts that he accordingly made representation to various authorities including District Magistrate and Block Development Officer, Allouli but even though a year has elapsed there was no response. He states that petitioner has come to know that he is not being paid his salary inspite of the fact that undisputedly he is doing his work because his services have not been approved by the Human Resources Department. In this connection he has annexed Annexure 15, dated 4.6.2009 wherein it has been indicated that the first recruitment process of primary teacher has to end by 30.11.2007 but in some cases it got delayed where State has extended the time to get approval upto 20.3.2008 where after no approval should be granted . Petitioner states that though the entire process of petitioner’s recruitment culminated with selection on 29.1.2007, appointment letter issued on 6.12.2007 , he joined pursuant thereto on 7.12.2010 and has been working ever since 3 uninterruptedly, still merely because the officer concerned with the appointment did not take approval from the State Government by 20.3.2008, the petitioner cannot be treated as a wrongly employed and is entitled to salary as a consequence of his employment. In my view the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is correct. Fault on the part of authority in sending the case of petitioner for approval, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer. The directions were issued to its employees to comply with the direction and if they failed , the petitioner cannot suffer for mistake of others. In this connection I may only refer to what Chief justice Chagla said in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicate Limited -v- Commissioner of income Tax, Bombay City since reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 232, which is noted hereunder: “ But the most surprising contention is put forward by the Department that because their own officer failed to discharge his statutory duty, the assessee is deprived of his right which the law has given to him under sub-section (2) of S.24. In other words, the Department wants to benefit from and wants to take advantage of its own default. It is an elementary principle of law that no person- we take it that the income-tax Department is included in that definition- can put forward his own default in defence to a right asserted by the other party. A person cannot say that the party claiming the right is deprived of that right 4 because “ I have committed a default and the right is lost because of that default”. Thus I have no option but to direct the concerned respondent to examine the matter once again and if it is found that the petitioner was duly selected on 29.11.2007, appointment letter duly issued, he has duly joined and he was discharging his function then the department should have approved his services from the date he had joined and make payment of his remuneration accordingly. The decision must be taken by the Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna within two months from the date of filing of detailed representation by the petitioner in this regard to establish the facts, as aforesaid and once if Director finds it in favour of the petitioner, the Department of Human Resources would immediately confirm the same and remuneration, if any, payable to the petitioner ,would be paid within three months without fail. This disposes of the writ petition. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)