IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA MJC No.2656 of 2006 BIPIN BHARDWAJ & ORS Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- For the Petitioners : Mr. Suresh Kumar Ishwar, Advocate For the Opposite parties. : M/s Tej Bahadur Singh, Senior Advocate Gyan Shankar, Advocate -------- P R E S E N T Hon’ble the Chief Justice & Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal Dated, the 24th July, 2008. The operative portion of the order dated 7th July, 2006 reads thus: “In view of aforesaid discussions the impugned order contained in annexure – 13, in so far as it relates to the petitioners, is quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Chairman of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board for taking a fresh decision in respect of claims of the petitioners ion the matter of grant of approval to their appointments/services against 120 primary units sanctioned on 18.11.89. Such units shall be treated to have remained sanctioned till 122-12-95. For the purpose of placing their points and materials. Petitioners must approach the Chairman of the Sanskrit Shiksha Board along with a copy of this order within six weeks. Thereafter a decision in accordance with law should be taken at any early date, preferably within two months. Claims of the petitioners for payment of grants shall abide such decision of the Chairman and in case petitioners are found entitled for payment it should be made to them without any delay.” - 2 - 2. By means of this contempt application the grievance has been raised by the petitioners that the order has not been complied with. 3. Opposite party nos. 3 and 4 have shown cause in opposition to this contempt application. In paragraphs 10 to 15 of the show-cause, following statement has been made- “10. That in the light of the order and direction passed by the Hon’ble Court, the case of the petitioners were considered by the Chairman and petitioners also appeared through their respective counsels. The chairman has observed in the order that the appointment of the petitioners were not made in accordance with Rules, which were prevailing prior to the ordinance. The petitioner were appointed against un-sanctioned post, in the year 1988. The draft advertisement published by that Government was not approved by the Board. In the school there are only 7 sanctioned posts of teachers including the headmaster and two posts of non-teaching staff. The additional Unit in Primary School, which were created on 18.11.1989. Two units in each school were abolished by notification dated 21.1.1995 vide Notification No. 957 dated 21.1.1995. The chairman has held that the petitioners were appointed beyond sanctioned post and their appointment were not approved by the competent authority as the Board or the Chairman has no jurisdiction to grant approval to the teachers working in the taking over schools, so long their works remained enforced. Admittedly the services of the petitioners were approved on 10 the January, 1990 when the Board had poser to approve, as the petitioners services were no approved by the competent authority, they were not treated to be validly appointed and accordingly the claim of the petitioners for payment of their salary has been rejected. The order rejecting the claim of the petitioners has been passed vide memo No.5008 & 5009 dated 17.11.2006. 11. That so far the payment of salary to the teachers till - 3 - abolition of post i.e. 21.12.1995 is concerned, the State Govt. has already paid salary to these teachers who were appointed against newly created Primary Units and their services were approved by the competent authority. 12. That all validly appointed teachers against Additional Primary Units have been paid their salary up to 21.11.2005. 13. That as the petitioners appointment have been held to be illegal due to non-approval of the advertisement, non-approval of their services by a competent authority and no-completion of provisions for appointment provided under 1976 Service condition Rules, their claim for payment of salary have been rejected by the Chairman. 14. That it is true that some delay has been caused in compliance of the order passed by this Hon’ble Court, but because the opportunity of hearing had to be provided to the petitioners before passing the fresh order. 15. That from the facts mentioned above it is clear that the order of the Hon’ble Court has already been complied with and the claim of petitioners for payment of salary have been considered and as their appointment were not found in accordance with law, as such claim for payment of salary has been rejected.” 4. In what have been stated in the show -cause filed by the opposite party nos. 3 and 4, we are satisfied that no case for contempt is made out. It cannot be said that the respondents are guilty of deliberate disobedience or defiance of the order dated 7th July, 2006. As a matter of fact, the petitioners’ appointments have been found to be illegal. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the decision of the Chairman holding their appointments illegal, they may avail the remedy available in - 4 - law. 5. M.J.C. is disposed of accordingly. Anil/ R.M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J