STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. versus RAMDEO YADAV AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] 2 S.C.R. 1059 · Decided: 26-02-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

l 
'"""'· 
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. 
A 
v. 
RAMDEO YADAV AND ORS. 
FEBRUARY 26, 1996 
(K. RAMASWAMY AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.J 
B 
Seivice Law : 
Appointment-Regulwisation of-Untrained teachers appointed -Sub-
sequently school taken over by the Govemment-Wlit petition filed by the two C 
untrained teachers for a direction to regulmise their seivices as they had 
completed the training subsequeitt to their appointment and thus entitled ~o 
be deemed Govemment se1Vants-High Court allowing the writ petition-On 
appeal held, any untrained teacher existing p1ior to the take over not eligible 
to be taken over-Hence not entitled to be regularised and deemed to be 
Govemment servants--High Cowt's order set aside--Bihar Non-Govemment D 
P1ima1y School (taking over control) Act, 1976-Sections--1., 3, 4, 8. 
Constitution of India, 1950. 
A1t. 226-Writ jwisdiction-No mandamus would be issued directing E 
the Govemment to disobey the law. 
J & K Public Se1Vice Commissioner v. Dr. Narinder Mohan & Ors., 
(1994] 2 SCC 630 = (1994) 3 Scale 597, relied on. 
Public Interest. 
Public Interest involved in interpretation of law-Court entitled to go 
into the question even though no appeal was filed against an earlier order. 
State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, [1995] 2 SCC 683 and State of 
F 
Bengal v. Debdas Kumar, [1991) Supp. 1 SCC 138, relied on. 
G 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4283 of 
1996. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.7.95 of the Patna High Court 
in C.W.J. C. No. 1063 of 1985. 
H 
1059 
1060 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1996] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
B.B. Singh for the Appellants. 
Rudreshwar Singh and R.P. Wadhwani, for the Respondents. 
The following Order of the Court was delivered ~ 
B 
Leave granted. 
We have heard the counsel on both sides. 
The admitted facts are that Reghunandan Babula! Kanya Middle 
School, Sukhsan was taken over by the State Government on January 13, 
C 1981, as a consequence of the recommendation made by the Committee 
constituted under Section 3( 4) of the Bihar Non-Government Primary 
School (taking over control) Act, 1976 (for short, the 'Act'). As on that 
date there were seven persons, who were teachers and other employees to 
whom grand-in-aid was given. Two candidates, namely, the respondents 
Ramdeo Yadav and Raj Nar'ain Yadav were untrained teachers appointed 
D after 1.1.1971. They filed the writ petition in the High Court for a direction 
to regularise their services on the premise that they had completed the 
training subsequently and that, therefore, they are entitled to be deemed 
Government servants from 1.1.1971. The High Court in CWJC No. 1963/95, 
dated July 27, 1993 allowed the writ petition following its earlier judgment 
E holding what they must be deemed to have been appointed as on 1.1.1971 
and by the date of their taking over, namely, January 13, 1981, they have 
already completed that training and that, therefore, they shall be 
regularised as Government servants. Calling that order in question, this 
appeal by special leave has been filed.· 
. 
. 
F 
Shri B.B. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that 
though an appeal against the earlier order of the High Court has not be~n 
filed, since larger public interest is involved in the interpretation given by 
the High Court following its earlier judgment, the matter requires con-
sideration by this Court. We find force in this contention. In the similar 
G circumstances, this Court in State of Maharashtra v. Digambar, [1995] 2 
SCC 683 and in State of Bengal v. Debdas Kumar, [1991] Supp. 1 SCC 138 
had held that though an appeal was not filed against an earlier order, when 
public interest is involved in interpretation of law, the Court is entitled to 
go into the question. 
H 
It is 'then contended that Section 3(2) and (3) maJce distinction 
-
STATEv. Y.YADAV 
1061 
between the employees covered by those provisions and the employees of A 
the aided schools taken over under Section 3(2). Until the taking over by 
operation of Section 3( 4) recommendation is complete, they do not become 
the employees of the Government under Section 4 of the Act. The Govern-
ment in exercise of the power under Section 8 constituted a committee and 
directed to enquire and recommend the feasibility to take over the schools. B 
On the recommendation made by them, the Government· have taken 
decision on January 13, 1981 by which date the respondents were not duly 
appointed as the employees of the taken over institution. Th

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