IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.5786 of 2010 1. SANJAY KUMAR S/O SRI GODI SAH R/O VILLAGE +P.O - RAJ KE BANGALA, P.S - THAWE, DISTRICT - GOPALGANJ. 2. SHAMBHU PRASAD, S/O SRI DWARIKA PRASAD, R/O VILLAGE - SEMARAUNA, P.O - RADHAGANJ, P.S - PHULWARIA,DISTRICT - GOPALGANJ. 3. RAM AYODHYA SAH S/O LATE GOPI CHAND SAH R/O VILLAGE + P.O - HAKAM , P.S - MOHAMMADPUR, DISTRICT - GOPALGANJ. 4. AWADH KISHORE SAH S/O SRI MUNSHI SINGH, R/O VILLAGE - BHARKUIA , P.O - BARAULI , P.S -BARAULI, DISTRICT - GOPALGANJ. 5. DEELIP KUMAR, S/O SRI YADAV LAL R/O VILLAGE - JAMO MATHIA, P.O - MADHOPUR, P.S - JAMA, DISTRICT - SIWAN. 6. SRI NIWAS SAH S/O SRI GOPAL SAH R/O VILLAGE + P.O - SIRISHIA , P.S - NAUTAN , DISTRICT - SIWAN. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, PERSONNEL AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE COMMISSIONER AND SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 5. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, GOPALGANJ. ----------- 4 2.7.2010 It is a matter of great regret that every body in the State of Bihar thinks that he is a law and rule himself and defying the administrative hierarchy. In matters of recruitment of permanent teachers , the State of Bihar has given the onerous responsibility exclusively on Bihar Public Service Commission. A large number of posts being vacant, they were duly advertised and candidates were selected by the Bihar Public Service Commission and recommended for appointment. When the candidates, so selected, and recommended for appointment, went 2 to join , the District Superintendent of Education, turns around and challenged their basis of selection. Petitioners were selected as member of Gond (Schedule Caste). This matter was fully examined by the Bihar Public Service Commission and selection process completed but even though the District Superintendent of Education was a much junior, he chose, for the reasons best known to him, to disregard the recommendation of Bihar public Service Commission and refused to let the petitioners join. This led to various correspondences travelled almost a decade. Ultimately, as what have happened earlier, every one surrendered and now it is accepted that petitioners were rightly selected but the District Superintendent of Education had to have the last laugh. He still had a weapon left .He now tells the petitioners sorry I do not accept your joining earlier and wrongly deprived you of your appointments but now I cannot help it. The State Government has directed that fresh appointment should be made as Panchayat Teachers and therefore you must join as Panchayat Teachers. The difference between the two is heaven and hell. One is a permanent post under the Government having a substantive pay scale and the other is all under the Panchayat having a very nominal pay. It is this arbitrary action that has brought the petitioners to this Court. Mr. Yugal Kihsore, learned Senior counsel in support of the writ petition submits that in view of the facts the controversy as raised by District Superintendent of Education 3 was needless and the end result is that the petitioners have suffered , firstly, by not getting job, which they were entitled to a decade back and then now permanently by asking them to join the post of Panchayat teachers. He submits that there were ten such persons who were treated in this arbitrary manner by the District Superintendent of Education. Five of them earlier moved this Court and this Court directed that they be recruited as regular teachers and not Panchayat Teachers by judgment and order dated 27.4.2010 passed in CWJC No. 6120 of 2010.Six remaining persons are now before this Court. Considering the facts aforesaid, all I can do is to quote a passage from the judgment of Chief justice Chagla in the case of All India Groundnut Syndicated Limited-v- Commissioner of Income Tax ,Bombay City since reported in AIR 1954 Bombay 232: “ 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 4 that right because “ I have committed a default and the right is lost because of that default.” In that view of the matter I am left with no option but to direct that the petitioners would be recruited as regular teachers under the State Government and not Panchayat Teachers. Their rights have been crystallized in the year 1998 and were wrongly denied to them. Justice must be done. Let writ accordingly issue. The writ petition is allowed. singh ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)