LexBIHAR STATE GOVT. SEC. SCL. TEACHERS ASSN. versus ASHOK KUMAR SINHA & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 7 S.C.R. 371 BIHAR STATE GOVT. SEC. SCL. TEACHERS ASSN. A v. ASHOK KUMAR SINHA & ORS. (Contempt Petition (Civil) NO. 88-89 of 2013 ) IN (Civil Appeal No. 8226-8227 of 2012) B MAY 07, 2014 [SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR AND A.K. SIKRI, JJ.] Contempt of Court - Service Law matter - Merger of C cadres - Petitioner-Association representing teachers of the Bihar Subordinate Education Service (BSES), claimed merger of their cadre with the Bihar Education Service (BES) - Merger sanctioned by the Supreme Court - In compliance thereof, Resolution merging the cadre of BSES with BES D issued on 07.07.2006-At this stage, writ petition filed by BES Association (BESA) challenging _the merger, was allowed by High Court - Immediately thereafter, the State Government withdrew Resolution dated 07.07.2006 by notification dated 19.11.2007 - However, eventually, said judgment of the High E Court set ~side by the Supreme Court which also quashed notification dated 19. 11. 2007 - State Government's Resolution dated 07.07.2006 was thus restored a.nd the State Government was directed to act accordingly - However, plea raised by the Petitioner in the instant Contempt Petition that F directions cont-ained in the said Supreme Court judgment were deliberately and contumaciously flouted by the State Government and thus the benefits of merger were denied - Held: lnspite of succeeding in three rounds of litigation, the petitioners were not only treated as a distinct and separate class, but the benefit which could accrue to them in a combined seniority list, as a result of merger, was snatched away from them - By a well crafted technique, almost the same result, which was the position before the merger, was G . 371 H 372 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014) 7 S.C.R. A achieved - Provisions in the 2014 Rules were made with the sole intention to frustrate the effect of the judgment - This amounted to contempt of the Court - Bihar Education Rules, 2014. B Disposing of the Contempt Petition with appropriate directions, the Court HELD:1. By placing the erstwhile BSES teachers in teaching sub cadre, they were allowed to go upto the position of Principal which was the highest promotional C post in their sub cadre. On the other hand BES Officers were put in administrative sub cadre to continue to control the schools. Moreover, each sub cadre was to have its separate seniority list, thereby, the combined gradation list was given a go bye and even by. bringing D BSES in BES, segregation between the two cadres was achieved. In spite of succeeding in three rounds of litigation, the petitioners were not only treated as a distinct and separate class with the creation of the aforesaid sub cadre, the benefit which could accrue to E them in a combined seniority list, as a result of merger, was snatched away from them. [Para 32] [402-C-F] 2. If an exercise is undertaken on the premise that itJ is done to comply with the directions contained in the judgment and the Court finds that, ex facie, it is not so F and on the contrary offends the directions in the judgment, such a move cannot be countenanced. In the case at hand, it is crystal clear and borne from the record that the whole exercise was done to go out of way to help BES Officer~. However, by well crafted technique of G creating sub cadres and treating teaching category as dying sub cadre, almost the same result, which was the position before the merger, was achieved. The provisions in the Bi_har Education Rules, 2014 were made with the sole intention to frustrate the effect of the judgment. This H BIHAR STATE GOVT. SEC. SCL. TEACHERS ASSN. 373 v. ASHOK KUMAR SINHA amounted to contempt of the Court. [Paras 33, 34] [402- A H; 403-A-B, F-G] J. S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others, [1996 (6) SCC 291]; Indian Airports Employees' Union v. Ranjan Chatterjee and Another, [(1999) 2 SCC 537]; All India Anna Dravida B Munnetra Kazhagam v. L.K. Tripathi and others, [(2009) 5 SCC 417]; Delhi Development Authority v. Skipper Construction Co. (P) Ltd. and Another (1996) 4 SCC 622: 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 295 and Ashish Ranjan v. Anupma Tandon and another(2010) 14 SCC 274: 2010 (14) SCR 961 C - referred to. Case Law Reference : 1996 (6) sec 291 referred to Para 15 (1999) 2 sec 537 referred to Para 15 (2009) 5 sec 417] referred to Para 15 1996 (2) Suppl. SCR 295 referred to Para 16 2010 (14) SCR 961 referred to Para 17 CIVIL APPELL
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.