ASHOK KNMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF BIHAR
LAWS(PAT)-1979-3-18
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on March 19,1979

ASHOK KNMAR SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

DATTATRAYA MORESHWAR VS. STATE OF BOMBAY [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF BOMBAY VS. PURUSHOTTAM JOG NAIK [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

B.P.Sinha, J. - (1.)By this application under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has challenged an order contained in Annexure 5 has also prayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to allow him to resume his duties.
(2.)Shortly stated the facts are these. A vacancy for the post of a Clerk occurred in Hindu Uchcha Vidyalaya, Hazaribagh. In response to a advertisement the petitioner along with two others applied for being appointed to the said post. On 30th March, 1977, the Secretary of the Managing Committee sent a recommendation to the Subdivisional Education Officer, Hazaribagh for the appointment of one Akhauri Bhujang Bhushan Sahay. The petitioner's name was put at serial no. 3 in order of preference. It appears that on 18th of June, 1977, the Board of Secondary Education issued a Circular that appointments to the post of clerks in the Schools should be made on the basis of marks obtained by the candidates. On 16th of June, 1977, however, the Subdivisional Education Officer appointed the petitioner as a clerk on a temporary basis on the basis of the Board's Letter no. 4041-4221, dated 1 -3-1975. The Secretary of the Board directed 'the Secretary of the Managing Committee of the School by a letter, dated 17th of July, 1978, to allow the petitioner to join his post. These two orders are contained in Annexures 3 and 4. It is stated that the petitioner joined the School on 18-7-1978 but the Headmaster did not allow him to sign the attendance register. On 29th of July, 1978, an order was issued by the District Education Officer, Hazaribagh that, in view of the order passed by Shri Ghulam Sarwar the Minister for Education, Govt. of Bihar, the appointment of the petitioner was postponed until further orders. It is this order contained in Annexure 5 which is under challenge in the present writ application. It reads as under : JUDGEMENT_506_BLJ1_1979Image1.jpg
(3.)It has been submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that Annexure 5 is not a Government order and the District Education Officer should not have acted on the basis of an order passed by the Minister concerned.


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