LexNAND KISHORE OJHA versus ANJANI KUMAR SINGH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. 306 A NANO KISHORE OJHA v. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH (Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 2007) B DECEMBER 9, 2009 [ALTAMAS KABIR AND H.L. DATTU, JJ.] Contempt of Court: .t c Undertaking given to Court - Breach and disobedience of - Recruitment of teachers in primary schools in State of Bihar - Directions given by High Court in writ petition to consider all trained teachers for recruitment - Not implemented - SLPs filed in Supreme Court withdrawn by D State on an undertaking to comply with court orders - Contempt petition as court orders were not complied with - HELD: The materials as disclosed before the Court and the .i submissions made on behalf of alleged contemnors, leave little room for doubt that even if the State had at one time E intended to give appointment to the trained teachers then available in the State when the undertakings were given, it has subsequently altered its position, with the result that the State and its authorities have sought refuge in disinformation for not implementing the undertakings given - When undertakings F were given, they were meant to be implemented - Having given successive undertakings to accommodate trained J. teachers in the vacant posts, the State Government cannot resile from its earlier undertakings and profess a change of policy for not giving effect to such undertakings - Furthermore, the appointments given to trained teachers, who were eligible G at the time when the undertakings were given, were as Shiksha Mitras, which appointments were allegedly ad hoc in nature and were not contemplated in terms of the said undertakings - In order to find a workable solution to the problem which has arisen on account of the failure of the Government authorities H 306 NANO KISHORE OJHA v. ANJANI KUMAR SINGH 307 to abide by the undertakings given on its behalf, the A • advertisement for appointment of primary teachers which was published in December, 2003 and had been struck down by the High Court, was brought to the notice of the Court for limited purpose of determining the total amount of vacancies which was shown as 234, 540, whereas the estimated number B of trained teachers yet to be accommodated was far beyond the said figure - In order to put a quietus to the entire issue, the figure relating to the vacancies to the posts shown in the advertisement are accepted, to meet the claims of the trained teachers who were at the relevant point of time available for c being appointed on a regular basis - Accordingly, notwithstanding the number. of trained teachers available, it is directed that the said available vacancies of 34, 540 shown in the advertisement for appointment of primary teachers, be filled up with the said number of trained teachers as one-time D measure to give effect to the undertakings which had been given on 18.1.2006 and 23.1.2006 - Accordingly, without I. issuing a rule of contempt, it is directed that 34, 540 vacancies ' shown as available in the advertisement published in December, 2003, be filled up from amongst the trained E teachers who are available, in order of seniority - This is to be done on a one-time basis and must not be taken as the regular practice to be followed - Let the contempt petition be adjourned for a further period of six weeks to enable the State Government to implement the order and to submit a report on the next date - Bihar Elementary School Teachers F .. Rules,2006 - Service Law - Recruitment of teachers in primary schools. Vijay Kumar & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (1998) 9 - sec 227' referred to. G Case Law Reference: (1998) s sec 221 referred to para 3 ..j CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition H (Civil) No. 297 of 2007. A 308 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2009] 16 (ADDL.) S.C.R. IN SLP (C) N0.22882 of 2004. From the Judgment & Order dated 1.7.2004 of the High Court of Judicature at Patna in C.W.J.C. Nos. 13246, 6661 of 8 2003, 1533, 1788, 1789, 1861 and 5053 of 2004. G.E. Vahanvati, Attorney General (NP), Ramesh P.Bhatt, Uday U. Lalit, (N.P.) L. Nageshwar Roa, Nagendra Rai, Kailash I Vasdev, P.K. Shahi, AG, Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, C Abhijeet Kakoti, Santosh Kr., Mushtaq Ahmed, D.K. Thakur, D. Jha, S.K. Sinha, Seema Kashyap, Mithilesh Kumar Singh, Dharmedra Kishor, Ajai Kr. K.N. Roi, S.N. Rai, Ranjit Sharma, D. Durga Devi, for E.C. Vidya Sagar, Shashi B. Upadhyay, Kumud L. Das, Raj Kumar Tanwar Pr
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.