KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1998] 3 S.C.R. 206 · Decided: 08-05-1998 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SUJATA V. MANOHAR · Disposal: Directions issued

cites 4 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
KRISHNA KUMAR SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
STA TE OF BIHAR 
....... 
; 
MAY 8, 1998 
B 
[SUJATA V.MANOHARANDD.P. WADHWA,JJ.] 
Constitution of India, Article 213-Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit 
Schools (laking Over of Management and Control) Ordinance, I 989 (First 
...-
c 
Ordinance)-Replaced by Successive Ordinances-None of the Ordinance 
providing compensation for properties taken over-Validity of-Held; (per 
Sujata V. Manohar, J.) All the Ordinances were illegal and had to be struck 
down; (per Wadhwa, J.-Dissenting) First Ordinance had to be given full 
effect but subsequent Ordinance has to be struck down-(Per Curiam) 
Matters referred to larger Bench. 
D 
Constitution of India, Article 213-Bihar Non-Government Sanskrit 
·· ~chools (Taking Over of Management and Control) Ordinance, 1989 (First 
J? 
Ordinance)-Conferring status of government servants on teachers of taken 
over schools-On repeal of First Ordinance successive repromulgated 
E 
Ordinances making status incumbent upon inquiry by and satisfaction of 
Government-Effect of repeal of First Ordinance-Held, (per Sujata Manohar, 
J., the First Ordinance did not have any permanent effect; since all the 
Ordinances were invalid no rights flowed from any of them; (per Wadhwa, 
J.-dissenting). The First Ordinance was of enduring effect which could be 
reversed only by State legislature; the teachers acquired status of and were 
F entitled to same pay scales as government servants-(Per Curiam) : Matters 
referred to larger Bench 
{ 
In 1989 there were 651 Sanskrit schools under the Bihar Sanskrit 
Shiksha Board which were receiving grants-in aid for expenditure on salary 
G of teachers and staff as well as for development of school buildings, furniture 
etc. However, these schools were managed by their own managing committees. 
On December 16, 1989 Ordinance 32of1989 entitled the Bihar Non 
Government Sanskrit Schools (Taking Over of Management and Control) . 
,.... 
Ordinance, 1989 (First Ordinance) was promulgated under which the State 
H of Bihar took over 429 out of the 651 Sanskrit schools. Clause 3(2) of the 
206 
K.K. SINGHv. STATE 
207 
First Ordinance provided for vesting of all properties and assets of private A 
schools. However, it did not provided for any compensation to be paid to the 
owners of the properties and assets. 
The First Ordinance was replaced on February 28, 1990 by Ordinance 
7 and Ordinance 7 was-replaced on May 2, 1990 by Ordinance 14of1990 B 
respectively. Ordinance 21 of 1990 which replaced Ordinance 14 on August 
12, 1990 made a change to the earlier Ordinances to the effect that the State 
Government would investigate the Sanskrit schools listed in Annexure 1 
- .__ 
thereto to find out whether they were in existence and what their properties 
and assets were. Further umler section 4, a Committee of specialists would 
enquire about the employees of these schools and on the basis of the C 
Committee's reports the State Government had to determine on an individual 
basis whether a teacher would be taken in Government services or not. This 
Ordinance was successively replaced by Ordinances 10 and 31 of 1991 and 
lastly by Ordinance 2 of 1992 which expired on April 30, 1992. 
The teachers of the taken over sanskrit schools filed writ petitions in D 
the Patna High Court challenging the validity of these Ordinances and 
'-
seeking a declaration that they were government servants. The High Court 
granted limited relief to the teachers that they be paid salaries as government 
servants from the date of the First Ordinance till April 30, 1992 when the 
last Ordinance lapsed and also directed payment of salaries for the earlier E 
period at the rate to which they were entitled. The teachers appealed to this 
Court. The State of Bihar, aggrieved by the directions to pay salaries to the 
te!lchers as well as the findings of the High Court that there was an 
'Ordinance Raj' in the State, aim appealed to this Court. 
Referring the matters to a larger Bench, this Court 
F 
HELD : Per Curiam : 
In view of the difference of opinion between the two judges who heard 
the appeals on the constitutional validity of the First Ordinance, and on the 
effect of it on the status of the concerned teachers, the matters be placed 
before the Hon'ble the Chief Justice oflndia for constituting a larger bench. G 
(254-8) 
Per Sujata V. Manohar, J. : 
1. All the Ordinances were illegal particularly when there was no 
basis shown for the exercise of power under Article

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.