IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11860 of 2011 Shiv Shanker Prasad SON OF LATE RAJNANDAN PRASAD RESIDENT OF DARIYAPUR MOHAR TOLA, P.S.KADAMKUAN, DISTRICT PATNA PRESENTLY WORKING AS PEON, GOVERNMENT WOMENS’ PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE, DUMARAON, DISTRICT BUXAR Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR SECONDARY EDUCATION, SECONDARY EDUCATION OFFICE, INTERMEDIATE COUNCIL BUILDING, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA INTERMEDIATE COUNCIL BUILDING, BUDH MARG, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT INSPECTORESS OF SCHOOL, BHOJPUR AT ARRAH. 6. THE PRINCIPAL GOVERNMENT WOMENS PRIMARY TEACHERS TRAINING COLLEGE, DUMARAON, DISTRICT BUXAR. ---------------------------------- 2 23/09/2011 Petitioner’s appointment in the Institution has a chequered history. He entered on the post of a Peon on temporary basis but within a month and a half jumped to the post of Laboratory Assistant. It is something for the Managing Committee to explain but obviously, this Court has not come across an instance of any other kind where a Class IV employee can be appointed on a Class - 2 - III post of Laboratory Assistant within such a short span of time of one and a half month and that too when initial engagement on a class IV post was a temporary one. Obviously it became the bone of contention or subject matter of dispute which led to the annulment of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Lab. Assistant which was a Class III post. Petitioner rushed to the High Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 3865 of 1997 which was decided on 29.07.1997. The said order has been annexed as annexure-16 to the writ application. After considering every aspect of the factual as well as legal questions raised, the Court did not find anything illegal with the order of termination of the petitioner from the post of Lab Assistant or a Class III post but did find that petitioner ought not to have been thrown out on the road even from Class IV post by ignoring the fact that the petitioner was still in a temporary capacity on a class IV post. Since as far back as in 1997 the Court allowed the petitioner to continue on a Class IV post, the matter cannot be re-opened on that aspect. Petitioner visited the High Court yet another time by filing C.W.J.C. No. 7893 of 2005. Obviously, - 3 - finding resistance from the Bench with regard to the prayer or relief which he was looking for, he decided to withdraw the writ application and take the route of representation before the authorities. The authorities have now passed annexure-23 which is under challenge in the present writ application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that he has to be treated to be holding a Class III post and he has a right to take salary and all such benefits which will accrue by virtue of such a position. The decision, according to the petitioner, contained in annexure-23 and the reasonings given therein is fallacious and de hors the fact. With due respect to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the Court has gone through annexure-23 and other annexures which have been annexed with the writ application, including the earlier order of the High Court passed and contained in annexure-16. The declaration of fact made by the High Court way back in the year 1997 does not vanish merely because a decade or more than a decade has gone past. The service position and the status of the petitioner stays where it was when the High Court - 4 - decided that he was appointed on a Class IV post and he should remain on a class IV post. Nothing more than that was permitted by the High Court in 1997 at the relevant time. Merely filing of repeated writ applications on misleading facts will not allow the petitioner to rake up the same issue as if the earlier declaration on the facts of the case had no bearing on the present set of dispute. It is a misplaced contention. The Court is constrained to record that the petitioner’s prayer and the relief made in the present writ application is far from being honest. The authorities have categorically recorded the entire history of service of the petitioner, the kind of judicial intervention which came to be made from time to time, every time he approached the High Court and the findings given by the Court in this regard. Since petitioner was a peon, remained as a peon, his claim for being given the benefit of Laboratory Assistant is a dishonest kind of prayer which has been made and which cannot be allowed as he did remain a Laboratory Assistant after the order of the High Court contained in annexure-16. The reasoning given by the Director, Secondary Education, Government - 5 - of Bihar contained in annexure-23 is in consonance with the factual position as well as the law. The writ is misplaced and is dismissed. In fact, the Court was inclined to impose some kind of cost upon the petitioner but taking a holistic and indulgent attitude to the same the Court restrains itself. This writ application being devoid of merit is dismissed. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)