STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. versus RADHA K. JHA AND ORS. ETC. ETC.

Citation: [2002] SUPP. 1 S.C.R. 269 · Decided: 22-07-2002 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: D.P. MOHAPATRA · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

STATE OF BIHAR AND ANR. ETC. ETC. 
A 
v. 
RADHA K. JHA AND ORS. ETC. ETC. 
JULY 22, 2002 
B 
[D.P. MOHAPATRA AND BRIJESH KUMAR, JJ.] 
Service Law: 
Lab Assistants/Techniciansllnchargesllnstructors-Plea for re- C 
designation as Demonstrators with all benefits-Allowing Writ Petition, High 
Court directed State Government to dispose of representation of employees in 
the light of relevant decisions of High Court/Supreme Court-State Government 
not complied with the direction and rejected the representation-Contempt 
Petition and second Writ Petition allowed by Division Bench with modification 
in earlier order-Cross appeals-Held, earlier order of the High Court has D 
not been challenged by State Government-Therefore, order of the High Court 
had attained finality and State Government should have followed it, specially 
when it has not brought to the notice of the Court the/act of abolition of post 
of Demonstrator. 
Constitution of India, 1950 
Article 226-Writ jurisdiction-General directions-Not to be given when 
relevant facts in each case have to be examined separately. 
E 
Lab-Asistantsffechnicians/lnchargesllnstructors working in Colleges 
under University of Ranchi tiled a Writ Petition with a prayer for issuing F 
directions to redesignate them as 'Demonstrators' with all consequential 
benefits. Single Judge allowed the Writ Petition and directed the State 
Government to decide the representation of these employees in the light 
of the decisions of the High Court and the Supreme Court. State 
Government did not comply with the direction and rejected the G 
representation. Aggrieved, employees filed a Contempt Petition on which 
the State Government was required to take a decision afresh but it again 
rejected the representation. Single Judge, allowing the second Writ 
Petition, directed the State Government to treat the petitioner as teachers 
and give them all consequential benefits. State Government preferred 
269 
H 
270 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2002) SUPP. I S.C.R. 
A Letters Patent Appeal. Division Bench partly allowed the appeal by setting 
aside that part of the order of the Single Judge which directed the State 
Government to treat the Lab-Assistants as teachers with all consequential 
benefits but quashed the order of the State Government rejecting the 
representation of the employees and further directed the State Government 
B to decide the representation afresh in the light of the Judgment of the High 
Court dated 7.9.1995. Hence these cross appeals. 
It was contended for the State Government that in view of the 
Judgment of High Court in Bhubneshwar Prasad Gupta v. State of Bihar 
point in dispute in the present matter stands concluded; that the State 
C Government in its order dated 16.9.1975 has taken a decision that no 
further appointment was to be made on the post of 'Demonstrator', and 
D 
E 
F 
tl:erefore, Lab-Assistants could not be designated as Demonstrators; and 
that decision of Supreme Court relied upon by the High Court has no 
application in the present case. 
It was contended on behalf of the Lab-Assistants that the order of 
the State Government stopping further appointment on the post of 
Demonstrator was never acted upon and many Lab-Assistants had been 
re-designated as Demonstrators in subsequent years. 
Dismissing both appeals, the Court 
HELD: I.I. Contempt Petition filed by the Lab-Assistants seems to 
have been decided taking a view that the order passed by the State 
Government on the representation was not in keeping with the direction 
issued by the Single Judge in the first Writ Petition. That order also does 
not seem to have been challenged. Another opportunity provided to the 
State to decide the representation culminated into repetition of the same 
exercise in rejecting the representation without following the two 
judgments in the light of which representation was directed to be decided. 
(274-F-H) 
1.2. Single Judge of the High Court in his Judgment dated 7.9.1995 
G in the first Writ Petition, had categorically held that the Division Bench 
decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Sindheshwari Prasad Singh 
and that of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 2530of1993 applied 
to the case in hand and issued a direction to the State Government to 
decide the representation in the light of those decisions. The Judgment 
dated 7.9.1995 does not appear to have been challenged and, therefore, 
H had attained finality. (274-D) 
STATE OF BIHAR v. RADHA K. JHA [BR
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.