IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.12504 OF 2006 1. RAM BALAK SINGH, SON OF LATE SHOBHIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADIL PUR, POLICE STATION MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, SAID KANHAULI CHAK (GORAUL), DISTRICT VAISHALI 2. SHIV CHANDRA SAH, SON OF RAM BARAN SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATAHI, POLICE STATION JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL FATABPUR JALALPUR (GORAUL), DISTRICT VAISHALI 3. JAGESHWAR RAI, SON OF LATE MEGHAN RAI, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KHIRACHAK, POLICE STATION MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, DHANDHUA (JANDAHA), DISTRICT VAISHALI 4. ANIRUDH PRASAD SINHA, SON OF SHRI BRAMHADEO PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NASARATHPUR, POLICE STATION JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT, POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, KARIHAUN (MAHUA), DISTRICT VAISHALI ………………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, -CUM- SPECIAL SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI 4. THE TREASURY OFFICER, VAISHALI ……………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS WITH CWJC NO.10999 OF 2003 1. RAM BAHADUR PRASAD ROY, SON OF LATE NANDU ROY, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE RAJAPAKAR, SOUTH TOLA, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION RAJAPAKAR, DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, PAHARPUR ANCHAL, PATEPUR, VAISHALI 2. JAGANNATH SHARMA, SON OF LATE RADHA SHARMA, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHARAMPUR, POST OFFICE FATEHPUR PHULWARIA (DUMARI), POLICE STATION SARAI, DISTRICT VAISHALI, PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER IN GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOL, PODHI, ANCHAL LALGANJ, DISTRICT VAISHALI 3. NARENDRA PRASAD SINGH, SON OF SARYU PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KUSHDE, POST OFFICE AND POLICE STATION LALGANJ, DISTRICT VAISHALI. PRESENTLY POSTED AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, HAHARO ANCHAL AND DISTRICT VAISHALI 4. ANIRUDH PRASAD SINHA, SON OF SHRI BRAMHADEO PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE NASARATHPUR, POLICE STATION JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT, POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, 2 GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, KARIHAUN (MAHUA), DISTRICT VAISHALI 5. SAKALDEO MAHTO, SON OF CHAUDHARY MAHTO, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE PARASHURAPUR, POLICE STATION AND DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT POSTED AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, BARONA, ANCHAL LALGANJ, DISTRICT VAISHALI 6. RAM BALAK SINGH, SON OF LATE SHOBHIT SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE KADIL PUR, POLICE STATION MAHUA, DISTRICT VAISHALI AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL, SAID KANHAULI CHAK (GORAUL), DISTRICT VAISHALI 7. SHIV CHANDRA SAH, SON OF RAM BARAN SAH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE BHATAHI, POLICE STATION JANDAHA, DISTRICT VAISHALI. AT PRESENT POSTED AS ASSISTANT TEACHER, GOVERNMENT PRIMARY SCHOOL FATABPUR JALALPUR (GORAUL), DISTRICT VAISHALI 8. RAM NANDAN SINGH, SON OF LATE JALESHWAR PRASAD SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE HAIYATPUR, POLICE STATION GOROUL, DISTRICT VAISHALI, PRESENT POSTED AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN GOVERNMENT MIDDLE SCHOOL, MUKUNDPUR, ANCHAL PATEPUR, DISTRICT VAISHALI ……………………………………………………………………………PETITIONERS VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, VAISHALI 4. THE TREASURY OFFICER, VAISHALI 5. THE DEPUTY TREASURY OFFICER, LALGANJ, HAJIPUR ………………………………………………………………………..RESPONDENTS ******** 6 20/12/2010 This Court vide order dated 04.10.2010 has directed the petitioners of CWJC No. 12504 of 2006 to file show cause to explain why they should not be punished for purgery in view of the fact that they had stated at paragraph 22 of CWJC No. 12504 of 2006 that the petitioners had not moved this Court in this matter for redressal of their grievances. At paragraph 12 of the writ application, however, it is said that the petitioners had challenged the legality and validity of the order contained in memo no. 862 dated 07.04.2003 by filing CWJC No. 3 10999 of 2003. The writ petitioners of CWJC No. 12504 of 2006 are Ram Balak Singh, Shiv Chandra Sah, Jageshwar Rai and Anirudh Prasad Sinha, whereas the writ petitioners in CWJC No. 10999 of 2003, Jageshwar Rai is not petitioner and some other persons have been arrayed as petitioners. The show cause indicates that it was by mistake, that such a statement was made at paragraph 22 „that the petitioners had not moved this Court for redressal of their grievances‟. It has also been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that when they filed the second writ application, the interlocutory application filed in CWJC No. 10999 of 2003 wherein an amendment was made challenging the impugned order dated 28.08.2006 was not in the records of the Counsel in question and as such the statement was given at paragraph 22 that they had not challenged the order dated 28.08.2006 earlier in this Court. . It is submitted that in fact the mistake was bonafide and that it was not the intention of the petitioners to mislead the Court or to suppress any fact regarding filing of the earlier writ application. Counsel for the petitioners submits that this fact would also be apparent from the order dated 24.09.2007 passed in CWJC No. 10999 of 2003. The order dated 24.09.2007 indicates the intention of the 4 petitioners inasmuch as it has been recorded that “Counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the said interlocutory application, they had filed CWJC No. 12504 of 2006 impugning the said order in which by the interim order dated 09.04.2007 of this Court, the direction for non-recovery pursuant to the said impugned order has been issued”. The Court has rejected the interlocutory application as it had become infructuous by virtue of filing the subsequent writ petition. Considering the submission and the fact stated aforesaid, this Court finds that there was no intention of the petitioners to mislead or suppress any fact before this Court and, therefore, accepts the show cause filed on behalf of the petitioners. The petitioners originally moved this Court against the order contained in Annexure-6 by which the petitioners were granted the I.A. Trained scale from the date on which the order was issued i.e. on 17.04.2003 vide memo no. 862. During the pendency of these writ applications, the order was modified and the I.A. Trained scale granted to the petitioner, was cancelled vide Annexure 7 and Annexure-9 issued vide memo no. 2667 dated 28.08.2006 and memo no. 3471 of 16.07.2007. The counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State 5 indicates at paragraph 8 that the petitioners were appointed against the newly created posts which were lying vacant due to the retirement or death of the teachers. It has been specifically stated in the counter affidavit that the petitioners were appointed out of matric trained panel, which is mentioned in their appointment letters. Counsel for the petitioners, on the other hand, refers to Annexure-B which is the notification, appointing the petitioners. The notification contains a list of teachers that were appointed by the said notification. The name of the petitioners find place at serial nos. 10, 15, 19 and 25, wherein it has been mentioned that the appointment is made on I.A. Trained scale and the petitioners were receiving stipend of the I.A. Trained scale as provided by letter no. 4109 dated 05.07.1979 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit). It is the specific claim of the petitioners that they were appointed on I.A. Trained scale and were receiving stipend of Rs. 160/- till 28.02.1981 and thereafter they were confirmed and were granted the I.A. Trained scale. The petitioners deny that they were ever appointed against the vacancies of the matric trained scale and as such contend that the said order of cancellation referred to above is unwarranted because it 6 treats the petitioners to be appointed on the matric trained scale. The aforesaid facts may be verified by the Director, Primary Education within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The petitioners are directed to produce a copy of this order within a period of eight weeks on its receipt before the Director, Primary Education. The Director, Primary Education should fix a date of hearing on the date he receives the application. The petitioners may file an application enclosing the appointment letters and any other relevant documents as they may think fit and proper. The impugned orders will be subject to the final orders passed by the Director, Primary Education. These two writ application are disposed of in the terms aforesaid. Anand ( Sheema Ali Khan, J. )