Decided on April 20,2022

STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


- (1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) Petitioners have prayed for the following relief(s):- "i. For diluting/ quashing or declaring the clause (iii) of the notice dated- 21/4/2016 published in Hindi Daily "Hindustan" read with clause 6 (ka) (i)) of the Govt. Memo no.2530 dtd. 4/10/2017 as ultravirous to the constitution of India so also nonest in the eye of law. ii. The respondents simultaneously may kindly be directed to replace the above said incorporation through just, fair, rational and reasonable stipulation so that the constitutional protection under Article 14, 16 and 21 be made available to 'the petitioners and other Non-formal Education Instructors cum Special Education Instructors, who are were validly appointed bonafidely worked and genuinely entitle for the job/absorption in question within the the four corners of law coupled with the illegibility and experience criteria which they having admittedly. iii. For directing .the respondents to consider the petitioners candidature/ cause, in . view of the well settled preposition of law. As stated hereunder- a- "Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done", since reported in (1924) 1K B256 (i.e. Rex V. Sussex Justices case) and other cases. b. "A reasonless order cannot be termed as an order, more so could not come und ((THELAW))r the definition of law decided and as such not at all have any binding effect" since reported in (2010) 9 SCC496 (M/s Kranti Asso. Pvt. Ltd. and Anr Vs Masood Ahmed Khan and ors., AIR2004 SSC2950 (Narcotics Control Bureau case) etc. c. Hot and cold can not be allowed to blow simultaneously" since reported in AIR2006 SCC online Cal.158, (2009) 8SCC-366, (2009)9SCC-304, (2011) 10SCC- 420, (2020) 6SCC-387 etc. d. Whenever a cut of date is fixed to categorized one set of employees for favourable consideration over others the twin test of valid classification must necessarily be satisfied" since reported in (2013) 2S CC-772 (794), K.T. Retired Official Association Vs. The State of Tamil Nadu and Ors. e. "The judgment must be read in totality "as has been held in Hon'ble Apex Courts decision since reported in AIR 1993 SC 43 (Commissioner Income Tax Vs. Sun Engineering) etc. and as such the Hon'ble Apex Court decision/order Supra dated-26/2/2016 ought to have been looked into in its totality and not in isolation while confining over the later par of order only. f. The doctrine towards "judicial decorum and binding nature" of an order has also could not be looked be looked into by the Hon'ble Apex court while passing the order above 'said dated-26/2/2016 and 2/12/2021. as the principal decided in. Ashwini Kumar and Ors. case supra has been passed by the strength/ bench of three Hon'ble Judges of the Hon'ble Apex Court and even though the said decision was neither diluted nor challenge, having still holding its field ought to have been honoured/followed by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble Apex Court under the doctrine of judicial decorum and binding nature of residence or the same ought to have been referred to the larger Bench, in case of difference of opinion etc. g. Right to livelihood is an integral part of right to life" since reported in (2016) 2SCC 123 (B.S. Shershiri) Vs. The State of Karnataka); (2014) 14 SCC127 (Dhiraj Singh Vs. State of Haryana) 2011 (1) SCC 53 (V.N. Shrikhande (Dr.) Vs. Amla Sera Fernandes). h. State action to be reasonable and in public interest "Since reported in in 2005 ALD 194 (Dr. V.V.Sai Naresh and another Vs. Union of India and ors. Vs. Union of India and Ors. iv. The answering respondents also may kindly be directed to not at all be prejudice with any decision or order which has no sanction of law and not having any binding law to effect more cause miscarriage of so justice on going the face of it. v. The answering respondent alternatively alternatively may kindly be directed 'to engage the petitioners either on regular basis ór on contractual basis while extending preferential right/ weightage in their favour, in view of the latest development published in Hindi Daily "Dainik Jagran" on 19/12/2021."
(3.) After the matter was heard for some time, finding the Bench not to be agreeable with the submissions made across the bar, more so, on account of delay and laches, learned counsel for the petitioners, under instructions, seeks permission to withdraw the present petition reserving liberty to approach the Respondent No. 3, namely the Director, Mass Education, Government of Bihar, Patna by filing a representation venting out his grievance, subject matter of the present lis, which the petitioner shall be filing within a period of four weeks from today.;

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.