STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. versus SUNNY PRAKASH & ORS.

Citation: [2013] 1 S.C.R. 362 · Decided: 18-01-2013 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 362 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. 
v. 
SUNNY PRAKASH & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 516 of 2013) 
JANUARY 18, 2013 
[P. SATHASIVAM AND JAGDISH SINGH KHEHAR, JJ.] 
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950: 
c 
Art. 166 read with Rules of Executive Business, State of 
Bihar - Agreement/Understanding dated 18. 7. 2007 enterea 
into between University and College Emptoyees Federation 
and the State Government declaring non-teaching staff of 
Universities and constituent Colleges equivalent to the 
0 Government staff, not implemented on the plea that the 
agreement was not in accordance with the Rules of Executive 
Business - Held: Merely because of change of elected 
Government and the decision of the previous government not 
expressed in the name of Governor in terms of Art. 166, valid 
decision cannot be ignored and it is not open to State to 
E contend that those decisions do not bind them - Further, the 
provisions of Art. 166 are only directory and not mandatory 
in character and if they are not complied with, it can be' 
established as a question of fact that the impugned order was 
issued in fact by State Government - In the instant case, it 
F cannot be said that the decision was not taken by or on behalf 
of the Government - High Court has not only directed the-
State Government to implement the Agreement dated 
18.07.2007, but also directed the Federation to call off the 
strike immediately in the interest of the student community -
G State Government directed to implement the order of the High 
Court - Service law - Rules of Executive Business, State of 
Bihar - Public interest litigation - Letter petition. 
Non-Implementation of the G.O. dated 25.02.1987 
H 
362 
STATE OF BIHAR & ANR. v. SUNNY PRAKASH & 
363 
ORS. 
issued by Education Department of Government of Bihar A 
declaring the non-teaching staff of Universities and 
constituent Colleges equivalent to the Government staff, 
led to repeated strikes by the Bihar State University and 
College Employees Federation and the agreements/ 
compromises between the Federation and the State 
B 
·Government 
and, 
ultimately, 
an 
Agreement/ 
Understanding was arrived at between the two on 
18.07.2007. A letter was issued by the Government on 
19.07.2007 for implementation of the Agreement and, 
consequently, the strikes were recalled. However, as the c 
Agreement/Understanding was again not implemented, 
the Federation went on an indefinite strike. Thereupon 
respondent no. 1, a student, addressed a letter to the 
Chief Justice of the High Court requesting to end the 
strike, which was treated as public interest litigation. The 
0 
Federation also filed an intervention application. The High 
Court by order dated 7.8.2008 directed the Chief Secretary 
of the State to ensure implementation of the Agreement 
dated 18.072007. The Federation was also directed to 
withdraw its strike. 
In the instant appeal filed by the State Government, 
it was contended for the appellants that the Agreement 
dated 18.07.2007 was not in accordance with the Rules 
of Executive Business, State of Blhar. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
.E 
F 
HELD: 1.1. Merely because of change of elected 
Government and the decision of the previous government 
not expressed In the name of Governor In terms of Art. 
166 of the Constitution, valld decision cannot be Ignored G 
and It Is not open to the Stile to contend that those 
decisions do not bind them. [Para 15] [380·0] 
State of Bihar and Others vs. Bihar Rajya M.S.E.S.K.K. 
Mahasangh and Others, 2004 (5) Suppl. SCR 376 = (2005) 
H 
364 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2013] 1 S.C.R. 
A 9 sec 129 - relied on. 
1.2. Further, the provisions of Art. 166 of the 
Constitution are only directory and not mandatory in 
character and if they are not complied with, it can be 
8 established as a question of fact that the impugned order 
was issued in fact by the State Government. In the case 
on hand, these are various communications issued by the 
Government for implementation of the earlier decision. In 
such circumstance, there is no reason to reject those 
communications sent by the higher level officers of the 
C State Government. [Para 16] [383-D-E] 
R. Chitralekha and Anr. vs. State of Mysore and Others, 
1964 SCR 368 =AIR 1964 SC 1823- relied on. 
0 
1.3. In the instant case, the proceedings of the 
understanding held on 17.07.2007, show that apart from 
the Chairman, Bihar Legislative Council, Minister 
concerned, viz., Human Resource Department (HRD) as 
wel

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