Letters Patent Appeal No. 1040 of 2007 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14064 of 2006. Case: Raghbendra Narayan Singh Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.. High Court of Patna (India)
| Case Number | Letters Patent Appeal No. 1040 of 2007 in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14064 of 2006 |
| Counsel | For Appellant: Hans Lal Kumar and Arun Kumar, Advocates and For Respondents: Mayank Rukhaiyar, AC to GA |
| Judges | N. P. Singh and Rajendra Kumar Mishra, JJ. |
| Issue | Constitution of India - Articles 12, 226 |
| Judgement Date | July 03, 2015 |
| Court | High Court of Patna (India) |
Judgment:
N. P. Singh, J.
-
The present intra-Court appeal has been filed by the appellant, who was the writ petitioner, being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 12.09.2007 passed in CWJC No. 14064 of 2006.
-
The writ petitioner/appellant claimed that he was an Assistant Teacher in a Sanskrit School known as Radhakant Primary-cum-Middle Sanskrit School, Ughara, Darbhanga. He had been protesting against the School authority and the private Managing Committee. He came to know in the year 2006 that he has been shown to have been dismissed from service on 10.02.1996 by the private Managing Committee without any proceeding, without any notice and this fact was not even disclosed to him. He averred that it was for the first time, in the year 2006 when payments were received from the State Government with regard to salary of Teachers, he found that payment, in his respect, was sought and made only upto January, 1996 and, thereafter, he was shown as past Teacher. The writ petition was, thus, filed challenging the order of dismissal of the year, 1996 in the year, 2006 and for payment of salary for the intervening period.
-
It may be noticed here that in the writ petition, it was averred that all this was done to accommodate the Headmaster's wife as an Assistant Teacher. It was also averred that the Secretary of the Managing Committee was the father-in-law of this lady who is respondent No. 9 and her husband is the Headmaster.
-
When the writ petition was taken up, an objection was raised on behalf of Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board (For brevity, the Board) that the School being a private School managed by a private Managing Committee, it would not be State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution and consequently no writ petition would lie. The learned Single Judge accepted this and, merely on this ground, dismissed the writ petition.
-
While admitting this intra-Court Appeal on 29th of July 2008, the Division Bench noted that the order of the learned Single Judge holding that no writ would lie even though the School receives grant from the State was seriously doubted by the Bench presided by Hon'ble the Chief Justice. After notice, respondent No. 7, that is the Secretary of the Managing Committee and respondent No. 9 that is the wife of the Headmaster, have appeared and filed counter affidavit. The stand, both have taken, is that the writ petition was not maintainable and the learned Single Judge was correct for which various...
To continue reading
Request your trial