LexGANESH PRASAD DUBE versus STATE OF BIHAR AND OTHERS
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
726
GANESH PRASAD DUBE
v.
STATE OF BmAR AND OTHERS
February 16, 1971
[C. A. VAIDIALINGAM AND A. N. RAY, JI.]
Practice-Grant of Certificate by High Court-Application under Art<.
132(1) and 133(1)(a) to (c) of Constitution-Procedure to be followed
J,y High Court.
The appellant, who was acting as Director of Public Instruction, chal-
lenged an order posting him as Director of State Institute of Education
by a writ petition in the High Court, on various grounds. It was dis-
missed.
He applied for grant of certificate to appeal to this. Court under
.Arts: 132(1) and 133(1) (a) to (c) of the. Constitution.
The High
Court held that Art. 133(1) (a) did not apply, did not consider whether
Arts. 133(1) (c) and 132 were applicable, doubted whether Art. 133 (!) (b)
would apply, but 'ultimately granted a certificate under Art. 133(1).
On the question whether the certificate was properly granted.
HELD : As the High Court has not properly considered the applica-
lion for grant of certificate. under Arts. 132(1) and 133(l)(b) and (c),
il will have to be remanded to be considered by the High Court afresh.
·1he High Court, in the fresh order to be passed, must clearly indicate
under what particular Article or clause of the Article the certificate is
_granted [733 A-CJ
Saya Narain Prasad v. Sttte of Bihar {1970] 2 S.C.R. 275 and
Mis Krishna Gyanodaya Sugar Ltd. v. The State of Bihar and Ors. A.l.R.
1970 S.C. 2041, followed.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 1256 of
1969.
Appeal from the judgment and order dated February 17, 1969
of the Patna High Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 153
of 1969 with Civil Miscel!ameous Petition No. 4499 of 1969.
Application by respondent No. 1 for revocation of the certifi-
cate granted by the High Court under Art. 133(1 )(b) of the
Constitution.
S. T. Desai, Tarkeshwar Dayal and S. N. Prasad, for the
appellant.
L. M. Singhvi and U. P. SiTigh, for respondents Nos. 1 and 3
to 5.
A
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
'
G. P. DUBEY v. BIHAR (Vaidialingam, J.)
727
A
Basudeva Prasad, Nawal Kishore Prasad Sinha and U. P. Singh,
B
c
D
E
F
G
H
for respondents Nos. 2 and 6 to 10.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by-
Vaidialingam, J.-In this appeal, on certificate, the appellant
challenges the order dated February 17, 1969 of the Patna High
Court dismissing summarily C.W.J.C. No. 153 of 1969 filed
under Art. 226 of the Constitution.
The appellant was appointed by the order dated March 21,
1968, by the State of Bihar temporarily to act as Director of
Public Instruction, Bihar. On the date of the said appointment
the appellant was the Director of State Institute of Science. In
the enaorsement in this order, it was stated that the appellant's
appointment as Director of Public Instruction has been made by
promotion on a temporary basis for a period not exceeding six
months in anticipation of the concurrence of the Public Service
Commission.
By order dated November 18,
1968, the State
Government passed an order posting the appellant as Director of
State Institute of Education. It is stated in the said order that
the appellant had been officiating in the post of Director of Public
Instruction by virtue of the order dated March 21, 1968.
The appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 153 of 1969 before the
High Court challenging this order of November 18, 1968 on
various grounds.
He had also alleged mala-fides in the passing
of the said order. In the view that we take that the order of the
High Court granting the certificate has to be remitted for fresh
consideration, we do not propose to refer to the various grounds
of attack made by the appellant in his writ petition before the
High Court.
The High Court by its order dated February 17,
1969 has taken the view that as the appellant's appointment as
Director of Public Instruction was on a temporary basis for a
period not exceeding six months in anticipation of the concur-
rence of the Public Service Commission, the Public Service Com-
miss;on, which was subsequently consulted did not give its con1-
currence to the appointment of the appellant as Director of Public
Instruction and therefore, the government passed the impugned
order dated November 18, 1968 posting the appellant as Director.
State Institute of Education.
As the appellant was appointed
purely on a temporary basis, he has no right to claim the post.
The High Court has further expressed the view that it is not
satisfied vrimExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.