LawforAll

advocatemmmohan

My photo
since 1985 practicing as advocate in both civil & criminal laws

WELCOME TO LEGAL WORLD

WELCOME TO MY LEGAL WORLD - SHARE THE KNOWLEDGE

Saturday, November 24, 2012

the promotional avenues for the teachers in Bihar Government Service.=The petition therefore prayed:- (1) for a direction to implement the decision contained in the notification dated 11.4.1977. (2) for a direction to prepare a combined gradation list of the Bihar Education Service Class II after placing the members of the Petitioner association in their appropriate places along with other constituents. (3) to restrain the respondents from acting upon the defective gradation list of 1995 (4) for the consequential reliefs, which meant increase in salary and allowances pursuant to the recommendations of the Pay Revision Committees appointed from time to time.= The State Government carried the matter further to this Court in SLP Nos.4937-4938/2001, and this Court dismissed the two SLP’s by its order dated 16.4.2001 which reads as follows:- “CORAM: Hon’ble Mr. Justice B.N Kripal Hon’ble. Mrs Justice Ruma Pal “Upon hearing the counsel the court made the following ORDER It is clear that the final direction which has been given to the Petitioner to implement the resolution dated 27th April, 1977 in the manner it is meant to be implemented. The petitions are disposed of.” Second round of litigation 12. It is, however, seen that inspite of the orders passed as above, State of Bihar did not issue the necessary orders for merger of the subordinate cadre of teachers into the Bihar Education Service, and consequential rise in pay. The law of finality of decisions which is enshrined in the principle of res-judicata or principles analogous thereto, does not permit any such re-examination, and the learned Judge clearly failed to recognize the same. The attitude of the State Govt. in this matter has caused unnecessary anxiety to a large number of teachers. The State Govt. must realise that in a country where there is so much illiteracy and where there are a large number of first generation students, the role of the primary and secondary teachers is very important. They have to be treated honourably and given appropriate pay and chances of promotion. If the orders passed by this Court were not clear to the State Govt. or any party, it could have certainly approached this Court for the clarification thereof. But it could not have setup a contrary plea in a collateral proceeding. We do not expect such an approach from the State Govt. and least from the High Court. Having stated this, although we have expressed out displeasure about the approach of the State Government, we refrain from passing any order as to costs.




                                 REPORTABLE

                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                    Civil Appeal Nos. 8226-8227  OF 2012
                               Arising Out of
                         SLP (C) Nos. 26675-26676/2010
                                    WITH
                            I.A. Nos. 19-20/2011

Bihar State Government Secondary
School Teachers Association                        ...     Appellant
                                   Versus

Bihar Education Service
Association & Ors.                                       ...
Respondents

                                     And

                     Contempt Petition Nos. 386-387/2011

Bihar State Government Secondary
School Teachers Association                        ...
Appellant/Applicants
                                   Versus

Anup Mukherjee & Ors.                              ...    Respondents
                                                         (Alleged
                                             Contemnors)



                              J U D G E M E N T

H.L. Gokhale J.


            Leave granted.

2.          These two Civil Appeals by  Special  Leave  raise  the  question
with respect to the approach the High Courts and the State  Governments  are
expected to adopt towards the orders  passed,  and  the  interpretations  of
Govt. resolutions rendered by  this  Court.   The  question  arises  in  the
context of litigation concerning the promotional avenues  for  the  teachers
in Bihar Government Service.
      The relevant facts:-
3.          The facts leading  to  the  two  Civil  Appeals  herein  are  as
follows:-
            The State of Bihar, which  is  respondent  No.66  in  these  two
appeals, set up a three member committee, in March  1976,  with  Shri  Saran
Singh, Member Board of Revenue, and Administrative Reforms Commissioner,  as
its Chairman. 
 The terms of reference of this Committee were as follows:-
           “To  hasten  the  avenues  for  promotion  in  the  Bihar  Civil
      Services, the government has  approved  junior  selection  grade  20%,
      senior selection grade 12.50% and posts  of  senior  Deputy  Collector
      2.5%.  The same percentage has been applied for junior selection grade
      and senior selection grade in the Bihar Engineering Service.  On  this
      basis,  requests  have  been  coming  from  various   state   services
      associations that due to lack of opportunity for  promotion  in  their
      cadres, there is stagnation, which must be removed.
           1.2    Hence,  keeping  in  view  the   strength   and   present
      promotional avenues in various State service cadres,  to  analyse  the
      problem of stagnation and to recommend means to  tackle  this  problem
      and promotional opportunities, a committee of the  following  officers
      is constituted:-
              1) Member, Board of Revenue-Chairman
              2) Chairman, Public Grievances Bureau- Member
              3) Finance Commissioner- Member”

4.          The committee drew its conclusions on the  basis  of  the  facts
and figures furnished by various departments.  As stated in the report,  the
approach of the committee was to find out:-
(a) what relatively, is the extent of stagnation in different services,  and
the present prospects of promotion, and
(b)  how  the  stagnation  can  be  removed  and  promotional  opportunities
enlarged.
5.          The committee noted that all  the  service  associations  staked
claims for the same percentage of the promotional posts as allowed to  Bihar
Civil Service and  Bihar  Engineering  Service.   Two  of  the  reasons  for
stagnation noted by the committee were: (i) relatively heavy recruitment  of
officers of the same age group in certain years, (ii) and lack  of  adequate
number of promotional  posts  at  different  levels  of  the  organizational
hierarchy.  The recommendations of the committee  with  respect  to  various
services are in part III of its report.
As far as Bihar  Education  Service
is concerned, it has been discussed in para (9),  thereof.
To  begin  with,
the committee dealt with the promotional chances of Class-II  officers  into
Class-I.
Then in sub-para B it has dealt  with  the  posts  in  specialized
institutes like those teaching Sanskrit, Prakrit  and  Persian.
 Thereafter
in sub-para C it has dealt with the Miscellaneous Cadre.  
The  analysis  in
this part and the recommendations read as follows:-
                 “C.   Miscellaneous cadre

           11.10.      This service  consists  of  59  posts  of  different
      categories like teachers, engineers, Doctors,  Stadium  Manager,  etc.
      and excepting the  teachers  of  Netarhat  School  who  have  adequate
      prospects of promotion within the cadre, most of the  members  of  the
      cadre hold isolated posts with no definite prospect of promotion.   No
      promotional posts can be provided for because of the  isolated  nature
      of their job.

           In order, however, to minimize the hardships in their case,  the
      committee  would  like  to   make   the   following   suggestion   for
      consideration of the Education Department:-

              1)  Education  department  may  get  the  posts  of  engineers
                 included in the cadre of the Public  Works  Department  and
                 obtain their services on deputation basis.

              2) The two posts of the doctors may also be  got  included  in
                 the Health service  and  service  of  doctors  obtained  on
                 deputation basis.
              3) The remaining posts should be included in the General cadre
                 and manned by officers of the Bihar Educational Service  as
                 far as practicable.”

      The committee suggested that the proposals  should  come  into  effect
from 1st January, 1977.
6.          The recommendations of the committee were accepted by the  State
Government,  and  the  State  Government  (Finance  Department)   issued   a
notification dated  11.4.1977,  which  was  subsequently  published  in  the
Gazette Extra-Ordinary on 27.4.1977.   The  decision  with  respect  to  the
recommendations was contained in Schedule-1 of the notification.  As far  as
the education department and the  miscellaneous  cadre  are  concerned,  the
decision notified reads as follows:-
                                 Schedule-1
|Sr.|Para No.|Page|Departmen|Name  |Recommendation the         |Govt.   |
|No.|of      |No. |t        |of    |Committee                  |Decision|
|   |committe|    |         |servic|                           |        |
|   |e report|    |         |e     |                           |        |
|1  |2       |3   |4        |5     |6                          |7       |
|7  |1.10    |25  |Education|Misc. |1) kindly merge the post of|Approved|
|   |        |    |Departmen|Cadre |the Engineers of the       |        |
|   |        |    |t        |      |Education Department into  |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |Bihar engineering Services |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |Cadre and take the Services|        |
|   |        |    |         |      |of the Engineers by means  |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |of Deputation              |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |2) The posts of doctors    |Approved|
|   |        |    |         |      |should be included in the  |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |Bihar Health Services cadre|        |
|   |        |    |         |      |and as per the requirement |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |their service should also  |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |be taken on deputation     |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |3) Various Posts such as   |Approved|
|   |        |    |         |      |Teacher (except the        |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |teachers of Netarhat) and  |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |the posts  of Stadium      |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |managers etc should be     |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |included in the Bihar      |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |Education Service cadre and|        |
|   |        |    |         |      |the Officers of the cadre  |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |should be appointed on     |        |
|   |        |    |         |      |these posts                |        |


                                                      (emphasis supplied)
      First round of litigation


7.          It is the case  of  the  petitioner  Secondary  School  Teachers
Association  that,  though  this  notification  was  issued  by  the   State
Government on 11.4.1977, the State Government took  no  steps  to  implement
the same.  
They represented for its implementation from time  to  time,  but
that was without any effect.
 They learnt  that  one  provisional  gradation
list was prepared in the year 1986, but it  was  never  circulated  or  made
known to the Petitioner association.
 Another gradation  list  was  prepared
in 1995, and they found that the same  had  left  out  the  members  of  the
Petitioner  association.
 Two  representations  were   once   again   made,
including  one  on  25.5.1998,  but  that  was  also  without  any   effect.
Therefore,  they  were  constrained  to  file  the  Writ  Petition,  bearing
No.12122 of 1998, against the State of Bihar  and  the  concerned  officers.
In  this  petition  they  specifically  claimed  (a)  that   the   aforesaid
notification of 11.4.1977 contemplated a merger of their  cadre  into  Bihar
Education Service which consists of class-II employees,  and  (b)  that  any
appointment and further promotions are to be made from the  combined  cadre.
The petition therefore prayed:-
(1)    for  a  direction  to  implement  the  decision  contained   in   the
notification dated 11.4.1977.
(2)   for a direction to prepare a combined  gradation  list  of  the  Bihar
Education Service Class II after  placing  the  members  of  the  Petitioner
association in their appropriate places along with other constituents.
(3)   to restrain the respondents from acting upon the  defective  gradation
list of 1995
(4)   for the consequential reliefs, which  meant  increase  in  salary  and
allowances pursuant to the recommendations of the  Pay  Revision  Committees
appointed from time to time.
8.          It is relevant to note that in this petition  they  specifically
pleaded in para 5 that  they  were  also  selected  through  Public  Service
Commission/ Central Selection Board, and that they also  had  qualifications
of being graduates with necessary  training,  and  further  that  from  1965
onwards they also had to have a Master’s degree.
 In para 6 of the  petition
they submitted that the Saran Singh committee had  recommended  the  merger,
despite  which  the  defective  gradation  lists  were  prepared,  first  on
19.7.1986 and thereafter on 13.11.1995,  contrary  to  the  notification  of
11.4.1977.
9.          Another Writ Petition bearing CWJC  No.8147/1999  was  filed  by
some teachers viz. Smt. Ratan Prabha and Ors.
This petition drew  attention
to the issue of pay anomaly.  They also  relied  upon  the  notification  of
11.4.1977, and prayed for preparation of a common seniority list  for  Bihar
Education Service.
 Both the Writ Petitions were heard together.  The  State
Government did not file any counter in spite of adequate  time  having  been
granted.  The learned Single Judge of Patna  High  Court,  observed  in  his
order that it appears that the orders of merger had  not  been  issued,  and
the matter was pending with the State Government,  though  in  the  meantime
separate gradation list had been published for one  or  the  other  teaching
cadre.  The learned single  judge  therefore,  passed  the  following  order
dated 2.2.2000:-
           “In the circumstances, I direct the commissioner cum  Secretary,
      Secondary, Primary and Mass Education, government of Bihar to act upon
      the government decision contained in Resolution dated 11.4.1977 so far
      it relates to the Education Service of the Education Department.”

10.         The State of Bihar felt aggrieved by this  common  order  passed
in the two Writ Petitions, and therefore filed two  Letters  Patent  Appeals
No.980 and 998 of 2000. The State Government contended  that  there  was  no
proposal to  merge  the  sub-ordinate  teachers  into  the  Bihar  Education
Service Class-II. It was  further  pointed  out  that  50%  posts  of  Bihar
Education Service Class-II were filled by the promotion of  the  subordinate
teachers.  This was however, denied by the  appellants  herein  by  pointing
out that factually however, hardly any  such  promotions  had  taken  place.
They also pointed  out  that  the  notification  dated  11.4.1977  had  been
implemented in other services in the manner in which they  were  canvassing.
The Division Bench dismissed these two appeals by  order  dated  27.11.2000,
wherein it observed:-
           “In our view, since this  court  by  order  dated  2.2.2000  has
      specifically directed the Government to take a decision  in  terms  of
      the resolution dated 11.4.1977, there appears no reason for the  State
      to be aggrieved by such order.”

11.         The State Government carried the matter further  to  this  Court
in SLP Nos.4937-4938/2001, and this Court dismissed the  two  SLP’s  by  its
order dated 16.4.2001 which reads as follows:-
                 “CORAM:
                 Hon’ble  Mr. Justice B.N Kripal
             Hon’ble. Mrs Justice Ruma Pal
            “Upon hearing the counsel the court made the following
                                    ORDER
                  It is clear that the final direction which has been  given
           to the Petitioner to implement the resolution dated  27th  April,
           1977 in the manner it is meant to be implemented.  The  petitions
           are disposed of.”


      Second round of litigation

12.         It is, however, seen  that  inspite  of  the  orders  passed  as
above, State of Bihar did not issue the necessary orders for merger  of  the
subordinate  cadre  of  teachers  into  the  Bihar  Education  Service,  and
consequential rise in pay.
This  led  a  subordinate-service  teacher,  one
Shri Janardan Rai, to file a fresh Writ  Petition,  being  CWJC  No.8679  of
2002.  He referred to the orders passed above, and prayed for  consequential
benefits along with fixation  of  pay  in  terms  of  the  State  Government
Notification dated 11.4.1977, and in  terms  of  the  order  dated  2.2.2000
passed in above referred CWJC No.12122 of 1998, which  had  been  upheld  by
the Supreme Court.
13.          This  petition  was   opposed   by   the   Additional   Finance
Commissioner of the State of Bihar, by filing an affidavit.  In para 13,  he
specifically  stated  that  the  decision   contained   in   the   aforesaid
notification is not at all related to the non-gazetted cadre of teachers  of
Government High Schools, and therefore, implementation of the order  of  the
Hon’ble Court does not require merger of the Subordinate  Education  Service
with the Bihar Education Service.
 In para 25, he contended  that  the  word
‘teachers’ mentioned in Item No.7 of Schedule-1 of the notification of  1977
referred to those isolated posts of  teachers  who  had  been  part  of  the
umbrella service, namely, Bihar Education Service, but who did not have  any
proper cadre, and therefore had no opportunities of promotion  available  to
them.  In para 26 he contended that the Saran  Singh  Committee  report  had
made clear that the report was  exclusively  about  the  cadres  within  the
Gazetted State Services.
14.          The  Director  (Administration)  cum  Deputy   Secretary,   the
Department of Secondary, Primary and Mass Education of Government of  Bihar,
filed two affidavits.  In the first affidavit, he stated in para  4(c)  that
in the notification  there  is  no  mention  of  59  posts,  and  hence  the
confusion arose.  He further stated  that  the  Government  had,  therefore,
decided  to  locate  those  59  posts  by  an  advertisement  and  call  for
information.  In para 6/A of the second affidavit, however, he  stated  that
there was no mention of any merger in the notification.
15.         The learned Single Judge who heard the petition referred to  the
earlier orders up to the Supreme Court, and  then  observed  that,  in  view
thereof, the matter should have  attained  finality.   He  further  observed
that it was really unfortunate that the state had again started  giving  its
own different meaning to interpret the aforesaid  orders,  rather  going  to
the extent of even stating that some shadow-boxing  had  been  done  in  the
High Court and the Supreme Court, to obtain certain orders.  He stated  that
it appeared from the notings on the files of the State Government  that  the
Education Department had,  in  fact,  taken  a  decision  to  implement  the
aforesaid notification, and prepared a draft notification for  the  approval
of the Finance Department, so  that  the  orders  of  the  High  Court,  for
implementing the notification of 11.4.1977,  are  complied  with.   He  also
recorded that the said draft notification speaks of about  2465  sanctioned/
created posts. He stated-
            “…The said  draft  clearly  goes  to  show  that  the  Education
      Department has found that the petitioner and other similarly  situated
      persons were also  required  to  be  merged  in  the  Bihar  Education
      Service, in view of the aforesaid resolution. However, final  approval
      of the Finance Department was sought for, before final  direction  was
      issued  in  this  regard.   The  said  resolution  speaks  about  2465
      sanctioned/created posts.  As such it appears that the  only  obstacle
      which remains in non-implementation of the resolution is concerned  is
      the  functionaries  of  the  Finance  Department,  who  are  giving  a
      different meaning to the said resolution.”


16.         The  Learned  Judge,  therefore,  heard  the  arguments  of  the
counsel for the Finance Department exhaustively, and observed  that  if  the
meaning, which is tried to be given to the notification dated 11.4.1977,  is
to be accepted, the whole  notification  relating  to  the  Bihar  Education
Service would become redundant.  That apart, he observed “today it does  not
lie in the mouth of authorities to give it any other  interpretation  rather
they are sitting over the orders of the High Court, as well as  the  Supreme
Court.”  He, therefore, directed them to implement the notification of  1977
in its totality, within a period of six weeks, failing which, they would  be
liable to be proceeded for violation of the said order and the  order  dated
2.2.2000, as well as the orders of the LPA Bench and the  Supreme  Court  of
India.  He granted liberty to the petitioner to bring a petition before  the
Court in that very writ application itself, so  that,  if  necessary  erring
respondents can be proceeded against in accordance with law.
17.         This order was again challenged by the State Government  in  LPA
No.65/2003. Additional grounds were raised in the  LPA.   One  of  them  was
that if the interpretation of the term ‘teachers’ accepted  by  the  learned
single judge was approved, it will lead to the teachers other than those  in
Government service claiming the benefits of Bihar Education  Service  Class-
II.  Secondly, it was contended that the subordinate education  service  was
not a  state  service.  The  Division  Bench  of  the  High  Court  however,
dismissed  the  LPA  by  its  order  dated  10.3.2003,  observing  that  the
controversy had already attained finality with  the  order  of  the  Supreme
Court and nothing more was required  to  be  recorded  before  passing  this
order.  However, in the meanwhile Division Bench had also  passed  an  order
dated 27.1.2003 directing the  Chief  Secretary,  Government  of  Bihar  and
Director Administration of Bihar to remain present in the appeal to  explain
the non-implementation.
18.         These two orders led the State Government to file  Civil  Appeal
No.4466/2003, wherein the earlier grounds were reiterated.   A  counter  was
filed on behalf of Janardhan Rai & Ors. by  the  Gen.  Secy.  Of  the  Bihar
State Government  Secondary  School  Teachers  Association  which  had  been
impleaded as a respondent by an order passed by this Court.  Therein it  was
specifically stated in paragraph 13 as follows:-
           “…… Thus,  since  the  members  of  the  Respondent  Association
      belonged to a clearly identifiable cadre known as “B.S.E.S Cadre”  and
      were not part of any isolated post and also since their posts were not
      declared “Gazetted”-then, they clearly  fell  within  the  purview  of
      those State services covered by the Saran Singh Committee.  It is also
      relevant to mention here that the term “State  Service”  used  by  the
      Petitioners has not been defined anywhere.  This is evident  from  the
      Fitment Committee report, Government of Bihar published in 1998.  Thus
      in the absence of any special definition, the  words  “State  Service”
      would mean Government Service of the State regulated by State  Service
      Code.”

    The Civil Appeal was  dismissed  by  this  Court  by  its  order  dated
19.4.2006 which we quote in the entirety:-
                       “IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.4466 OF 2003

             STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.                   …APPELLANTS

                                   VERSUS

          JANARDAN RAI & ANR                           …RESPONDENTS

                                    ORDER

            Heard learned counsel on both sides.

            That a Government Resolution passed in 1977  has  not  yet  been
      implemented and continues to be the  subject  matter  of  a  spate  of
      litigation, despite 14 orders of different Courts, is  something  that
      shocks the conscience of this Court.

           The Order of the High Court in Letters Patent Appeal, which  has
      resulted in the present Appeal is a short (one paragraph)  order,  but
      the background appears to be  voluminous.   Learned  counsel  on  both
      sides have taken us through the various documents  on  record.   After
      patiently plodding through the record and the various orders, the only
      point that needs to be considered is, whether the Resolution  No  3521
      F2  dated  11th  April,  1977  of  the  State  Government   has   been
      implemented in  respect  of  the  Members  of  the  Bihar  Subordinate
      Education Service comprising Male and Female teachers.   According  to
      the Respondents, its implementation would mean merger of the cadre  of
      teachers belonging to the Bihar Subordinate Education Service with the
      Bihar Education Service Class 2; the stand of the State Government  is
      that this Resolution, which accepts and implements the report  of  the
      Saran Singh Committee (Paragaph 11.10), has nothing  to  do  with  the
      Members of the Bihar Subordinate Education Service Cadre.

           Writ Petitions were filed before the High  Court  of  Patna  and
      they were allowed in favour of the teachers holding that  such  merger
      is contemplated in the concerned Government  Resolution.   A  contempt
      petition was also taken out alleging non-implementation  of  the  High
      Court’s order, which had directed the State specifically to  implement
      the concerned Resolution dated 11th April, 1977.

           The contempt petition is still pending before the High Court and
      has been stayed in the present appeal.

           At the end of  the  day,  we  are  satisfied  that  whether  the
      implementation has been done in the manner required by the  Resolution
      or not is for the High Court to decide since  the  High  Court  is  in
      seisin of the contempt petition.   Hence,  we  feel  that  it  is  not
      necessary for us to interfere in the matter,  particularly  since  our
      attention has been drawn to the statements made on the  floor  of  the
      legislative  assembly  that  the  Government  itself  is  thinking  of
      implementing the Resolution in the manner that is being  suggested  by
      the Respondents.   In  any  event,  since  the  contempt  petition  is
      pending, the High Court will examine the matter and, if satisfied that
      the Resolution has not been  implemented,  deal  with  the  contemnors
      according to law.  In this view of the matter, we do not think that it
      is necessary for us to interfere at all.

           Civil Appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.   Stay  of  the
      contempt proceedings is vacated forthwith.
                                                    ...……………..……J.
                                (B.N. Srikrishna)

                                 ……………….……………J.
                           (Lokeshwar Singh Panta)
      New Delhi April 19, 2006”

19.         It appears that in view of this judgment of this  Court  in  the
second round of litigation, the State Government ultimately  moved  to  take
the decision as canvassed by the subordinate  teachers.   The  Cabinet  took
the  necessary  decision  on  3.7.2006.   The  memorandum  prepared  by  the
administration for the consideration of the Council  of  Ministers  referred
to the earlier developments in the first 10 paragraphs.   Paragraphs  11  to
18 of this memorandum which was approved by the Cabinet read as follows:-
            “11. The department prepared an  estimate  of  financial  burden
      involved.  According to a provisional estimate  the  estimated  amount
      difference is near about Rs. 64 crore.  But  because  almost  all  the
      beneficiaries have got the benefit of  first  ACP  therefore  on  this
      count after deducting a moderate amount it comes to near about Rs.  48
      crores 62 lakhs.  In additional to this, so many of the  beneficiaries
      are entitled to get the benefit of 2nd ACP.  If they are granted,  the
      2nd ACP then the estimates amount will further come down.

            12.  In the year 1977 the No. of total  created/sanctioned  post
      of the male and female teachers were 2465 against which total  working
      strength was 1336, which decreased to 880 by the years  2006,  out  of
      this if 301 units belonging to Jharkhand is deducted it comes  to  579
      only.

      13.   It is to be noted that in view of the  provisions  contained  in
      resolution No.3521 dated 11.04.1977 several  departments  have  merged
      the lower scales with the higher ones.  But  the  incumbents  of  this
      cadre of the Education Deptt. have been denied their promotions  after
      1977 which was otherwise due.  Whereas the  incumbents  of  Inspecting
      Branch of this cadre are reported to have been promoted upto 2001.

       14.    The  officers  of  the  Bihar  Education  Service   in   their
      representation against this merger are apprehending that  this  merger
      will harm their interest.  But the Deptt. has no such knowledge  about
      them to be an intervener or a party in CWJC, LPA and SLP filed in this
      regard.  Most of the beneficiaries of this merger are on the verge  of
      retirement therefore there is no possibility of a  major  harm  to  be
      caused to the officers of the Bihar Education Service.

      15.   Therefore consequent upon-complying the orders  of  the  Hon’ble
      Courts it is proposed to  upgrade  2465  created/sanctioned  posts  of
      teachers of subordinate education service male and female  cadre  with
      Bihar Education Service Class-2 w.e.f 01.07.77.

      16.   The concurrence of Finance Deptt. has been obtained.

      17.   The approval of the Departmental Minister has been  obtained  in
      the proposal.

      18.   The approval  of  the  council  of  ministers  in  the  proposal
      contained in para 15 of the memorandum is solicited.”
                                                  (emphasis supplied)

20.         Accordingly, necessary resolution was issued under the order  of
the Governor of  Bihar  on  7.7.2006,  stating  that  the  teachers  of  the
Subordinate Education Service (Teaching Branch) male and female  cadre,  are
merged into Bihar Education Service Class II w.e.f. 1.1.1977, in  accordance
with  the  Finance  Department  Notification  dated  11.4.1977,   and   that
appropriate orders will follow after evaluating  personal  benefits  arising
out of the order.  A notification was also subsequently issued on  9.10.2006
giving effect to  the  above  resolution  with  respect  to  three  teachers
mentioned specifically in that notification.
      Third round of litigation
21.         Now, it was the turn of the  Bihar  Education  Service  to  file
their Writ Petition bearing CWJC  No.10091/2006,  wherein,  they  challenged
the Government resolution dated 7.7.2006 providing for  the  merger  of  the
Bihar Subordinate Education Service into the Bihar Education Service  Class-
II.  It was contended that  the  Bihar  Subordinate  Education  Service,  to
which the secondary teachers belonged was quite  different  from  the  Bihar
Education Service Class-II.  This was on the footing  that  their  modes  of
recruitment and minimum qualifications were  different.   It  was  submitted
that the merger will affect their seniority and therefore  the  decision  is
arbitrary and violative  of  Article  14  of  the  Constitution.  The  State
Government opposed this petition by filing an  affidavit.   It  was  pointed
out by the State Government that the Govt.  resolution  dated  7.7.2006  had
been issued in view of the judgments of the High Court as  approved  by  the
Hon’ble Supreme Court.   The  opinion  of  the  Advocate  General  was  also
tendered that the Govt. had no option but to implement the  notification  of
11.4.1977 as regards the merger of the two services.  The  intervener  Bihar
Education Service Association also opposed this  petition  and  pointed  out
that the earlier Writ Petitions were allowed by the High Court in favour  of
the  teachers  holding  that  the  merger  was  contemplated  in  the  Govt.
notification and the SLP therefrom had been dismissed.
22.   The learned Single Judge, however,  referred  to  the  observation  of
this Court in its order dated 19.4.2006, that it was for the High  Court  to
decide whether the notification of the State Govt. has been  implemented  in
the  manner  required  by  the  notification,  and  therefore  examined  the
legality of the  resolution  dated  7.7.2006  by  re-examining  the  earlier
notification dated 11.4.1977.  He took the  view  that  the  Govt.  decision
accepting the recommendation of the committee as recorded at Serial No.7  of
Schedule 1 was concerning the miscellaneous  cadre  only,  and  while  doing
that there was no  occasion  for  State  to  take  a  decision  about  Bihar
Education Service and to merge the teaching branch, male and female, of  the
Bihar Subordinate Education Service with the Bihar  Education  Service.   He
therefore allowed  CWJC  No.10091/2006  by  his  judgment  and  order  dated
31.10.2007 and quashed the resolution dated 7.7.2006.
23.   Along with the above writ petition, the  learned  Single  Judge  heard
another Writ Petition bearing CWJC  No.14678/2006  which  was  filed  by  51
subordinate teachers who on the other hand claimed the benefit of  the  very
Govt.  resolution  dated  7.7.2006.  The  learned  Judge  disposed  of  that
petition with same common order, but directed the Govt.  to  consider  their
cases if they are in any way situated similar to  the  miscellaneous  cadre.

24.         It is relevant to note that after this  judgment  and  order  of
learned Single Judge dated 31.10.2007, the Govt. of Bihar came  out  with  a
consequential notification dated 19.11.2007 quashing  the  above  Resolution
No.1209 dated  7.7.2006  (which  had  merged  the  teachers  of  subordinate
services  into  Bihar  Education  Service  Class-II),  and  withdrawing  the
financial benefits flowing therefrom.
25.         Some of the individual  teachers  who  felt  aggrieved  by  this
judgment and order dated  31.10.2007,  filed  LPAs  Nos.941/2007,  946/2007,
947/2007 and 974/2007.  As far as the Secondary School Teachers  Association
is concerned it directly filed an SLP to this Court against the order  dated
31.10.2007, bearing SLP No.8031/2008, but this Court vide  its  order  dated
16.3.2009 noted that those individual LPAs  were  pending  before  the  High
Court, and therefore granted liberty to  the  association  to  approach  the
High Court by way of LPA.  Accordingly,  the  petitioner  association  filed
LPA No.418/2009.  All those LPAs were heard together.
26.         The  appellant  association  as  well  as  the  Bihar  Education
Service Association reiterated their positions before  the  Division  Bench.
The appellant association principally contented that after the  decision  of
the Supreme Court dated 19.4.2006, it was not permissible  for  the  learned
Single Judge to re-open the entire controversy, otherwise there would  never
be any finality.  The decision of  the  learned  Single  Judge  was  however
defended by the Bihar Education Service Association by  contending  that  no
definite decision had been arrived at in the earlier proceedings.  As  noted
earlier the State of Bihar had defended, before the  learned  Single  Judge,
the Resolution dated 7.7.2006  approving  the  merger.  However,  the  State
changed its stand before the Division Bench.  As can be seen  from  para  38
of the judgment of the Division Bench, it was contended  on  behalf  of  the
State Govt. that neither in  the  notification  of  the  Finance  Department
dated 11.4.1977 nor in any order of this Court except  in  CWJC  No.8679  of
2002 (the contempt petition wherein was being heard with these  appeals)  it
had even remotely been decided as regards the merger of the teachers of  SES
in BES.  Thereafter, the para records  the  stand  of  the  State  Govt.  as
follows:-
            “As with regard to the order passed by the learned Single Judge
      in CWJC No.8679 of 2002, it was sought to be explained by the  learned
      Advocate General that since that case itself  was  being  heard  along
      with these appeals as per the order of the Apex Court dated 19.4.2006,
      the same could not be treated as a binding precedent”.

27.         The Division Bench took  the  view  that  the  State  Govt.  had
issued the resolution 7.7.2006 under the  threat  of  contempt,  though  the
judgment does not record any such submission on behalf of  the  State  Govt.
The judgment indicates that in the opinion of the Division Bench  the  order
of this Court dated 19.4.2006 did not  prohibit  the  learned  Single  Judge
from going into the entire controversy.  The Division  Bench  accepted  that
unless rules were framed, there could not be any merger since there  was  no
parity in the pay of  the  subordinate  teachers  and  the  Bihar  Education
Service Class-II employees.  After referring to  the  report  of  the  Saran
Singh  Committee,  the  Division  Bench  formed   the   opinion   that   the
notification of the State Govt. dated 11.4.1977 will  have  to  be  confined
only to 59 posts in the miscellaneous cadre.
28.         The LPAs were therefore dismissed by the Division Bench  by  the
impugned judgment and order dated 21.5.2010.   The  Division  Bench  by  the
same  order  also  dropped  the  contempt  matter  then  pending   in   CWJC
No.8679/2002.   The orders passed by the learned Single Judge as well as  by
the Division Bench have led to the present two Civil  Appeals  (arising  out
of SLP (C) Nos.26675-76 of 2010), which is the  third  occasion  when   this
controversy is coming up to this Court.
29.         When the Special Leave Petitions leading to these  appeals  came
up for consideration,  initially  a  notice  was  issued  on  7.3.2011,  and
lateron after hearing the counsel for  respondents,  the  operation  of  the
judgment and orders passed by the learned Single Judge as  well  as  by  the
Division Bench came to be stayed by an order passed on 4.7.2011.  The  State
of Bihar has now moved IA Nos. 19-20 of 2011 to vacate the  order  of  stay.
The appellants on the other hand have contended that in  view  of  the  stay
granted by this Court, the State of Bihar and its officers are  expected  to
take steps to implement the Resolution dated 7.7.2006, and  since  that  was
not being done they have filed the Contempt Petition (Civil)  No.386-387  of
2011 against the Chief Secretary  of  the  Govt.  of  Bihar  and  its  other
officers. The Civil Appeals, the I.A for vacating the  stay  order  and  the
Contempt Petitions have been heard, and are being  decided  together.   Shri
Patwalia, learned Senior Counsel  has  appeared  for  the  appellants,  Shri
Nagendra Rai, learned Senior Counsel has appeared for  the  State  of  Bihar
and its officers,  and  learned  counsel  Shri  Akhilesh  Kumar  Pandey  has
appeared for the Bihar Education Service Association and its members.
      Submission of the rival parties
30.         It was submitted on behalf of the appellants  that  the  learned
Single Judge and the Judges of  the  Division  Bench  who  have  passed  the
impugned order have failed to grasp the true import of the order  passed  by
this Court on 19.4.2006.  All that remained to be  done  thereafter  was  to
monitor  the  contempt  proceedings  in  Writ  Petition  No.8679/2002.  This
limited scope was exceeded by them to re-open the  entire  controversy.   If
this is approved, there would never be any end to the  litigation.   It  was
submitted by Mr. Patwalia, learned senior counsel for the  appellants,  that
the fact of stagnation in the services of the subordinate teachers  was  not
being disputed.  What was being contended was  that  the  recommendation  of
Saran Singh Committee was concerning only 59 miscellaneous  posts  and  that
was approved by the State Govt. in the notification of  11.4.1977.   In  his
submission, this reading of the  recommendation  was  not  correct.  In  any
case, the notification of 11.4.1977 has to be read on its own.  Besides,  in
the present matter the Court is concerned with the challenge  to  the  Govt.
Resolution dated 7.7.2006.  The implementation of this notification was  not
going to cause any serious financial burden on the State  Govt.   The  State
Govt. was to upgrade the posts, and thus the subordinate  teachers  were  to
carry their own posts in the Bihar Education Service  Class-II,  though  not
many  of  those  teachers  were  going  to  benefit  since   most   of   the
beneficiaries have already retired or are on  the  verge  of  retirement  as
stated in the resolution.  As far as seniority is  concerned,  he  submitted
that the subordinate employees who remain  in  service  will  get  seniority
from 1977, and naturally those who joined the service subsequently  will  be
placed thereafter.  Mr. Patwalia  therefore  submitted  that  these  appeals
should be allowed, and the challenge to the  resolution  dated  7.7.2006  be
repelled.  He, however, fairly stated that  he  was  not  pressing  for  the
action in contempt.
31.         As against this, it was submitted on behalf of the employees  of
the Bihar Education Service that the  Subordinate  Education  Service  is  a
feeder cadre for promotion to the Bihar Education  Service.   Their  pay  is
different, and the merger, as proposed in  the  resolution  dated  7.7.2006,
will affect their  seniority  retrospectively.   In  their  submission,  the
State Govt. notification of 11.4.1977 has basically to be read in the  light
of the Saran Singh Committee report, which according to them did not  extend
the recommendations to the cadre of the subordinate teachers.  Mr.  Akhilesh
Kumar Pandey learned counsel, appearing for them, therefore  submitted  that
the SLPs should be dismissed.
32.         On behalf of the State of Bihar  submissions  were  advanced  by
Mr.  Nagendra  Rai,  learned  senior  counsel.   He   submitted   that   the
notification passed by the State Govt. on 11.4.1977  ought  to  be  read  as
confined to the Saran Singh Committee report  only.   There  was  no  merger
contemplated in the Govt. notification, and the order of  this  Court  dated
19.4.2006 should not be  read  as  confined  only  to  the  hearing  of  the
Contempt Petition by the High Court.   He  submitted  that  the  subordinate
service employees have otherwise also prospects of  promotions  under  their
service rules. The Saran Singh Committee Report was only for  the  employees
of the State Service and the subordinate service did not form  part  of  the
State Service. The report was meant for only those who did  not  have  scope
for promotion in the State Service, and therefore the SLPs be dismissed.
      Consideration of the rival submissions
33.         We have considered the submissions by the counsel for the  rival
parties. The above narration of the facts and legal submissions  shows  that
when the first Writ Petition No.12122 of 1998 was filed  by  the  appellant,
the State Government did not even care  to  file  a  counter.   The  learned
Single Judge went through the material on record and noted  that  the  order
for merger had yet not been passed, and the matter was  pending  before  the
Govt.   The  learned  Judge,  therefore,  passed  the  order  directing  the
Secretary, Education  Department  to  act  on  the  Govt.  resolution  dated
11.4.1977.  The State of Bihar chose to file an appeal before  the  Division
Bench where for the first time it stated that  there  was  no  proposal  for
merger.  The Division Bench which heard the appeal noted that the  direction
of the Single Judge was  to  act  in  terms  of  the  Govt.  resolution  and
therefore there was no reason for the State  to  feel  aggrieved.  When  the
State Govt. filed the SLP, this Court  observed  that  the  final  direction
given to the State was to implement the resolution  in  the  manner  it  was
meant to be implemented, and disposed of the SLP.  Thus,  it  was  clear  at
the end of the first round of litigation that  the  petition  filed  by  the
appellant had been allowed by learned Single Judge, and that order had  been
left undisturbed in the appeals therefrom by the Division Bench as  well  as
by this Court.
34.         As is seen from the  further  events  that  in  spite  of  these
orders the State  Government  did  not  take  the  steps  to  implement  the
notification dated 11.4.1977, in the manner accepted as valid in  the  first
round of litigation.  This inaction led Shri Janardhan Rai  and  some  other
teachers to file one more Writ Petition being CWJC No.8679 of 2002  for  the
implementation thereof, and the merger  of  subordinate  teachers  into  the
Bihar Education Service Class-II.  It is however seen that,  at  this  stage
there was a difference of opinion between the  Finance  Department  and  the
Education Department of the State Govt.  The  Finance  Department  continued
to maintain that the subordinate Education Service could not be merged  into
the Bihar Education Service Class-II.  The Education Department  however  in
its first affidavit, in this Writ Petition, recorded that  the  notification
of 11.4.1977 did not state that it is concerning only 59 posts.  Notings  on
the files of the Govt. clearly showed  that  the  Education  Department  had
understood that for the implementation of the notification,  the  merger  of
the two cadres was necessary, and had for  that  purpose  prepared  a  draft
resolution for the approval of the Finance  Department.   In  view  of  this
factual scenario, and also in view  of  the  previous  orders,  the  learned
single judge allowed the CWJC No.8679/2002, and passed the  order  directing
the steps for merger of the subordinate teachers into  the  Bihar  Education
Service. The appeal of State of Bihar was also  dismissed  by  the  Division
Bench by observing that the controversy had already attained  finality  with
the orders of the Supreme Court.
35.         The order passed by this Court, thereafter, in the Civil  Appeal
filed by the State Govt. bearing No.4466 of 2003 dated 19.4.2006 has  to  be
read on this background.  In the very first para  this  Court  has  recorded
that the non-implementation of the notification passed in 1977  for  such  a
long time had shocked its conscience.  In the second  paragraph,  the  Court
has recorded the submissions of the rival parties.  In the third  para,  the
Court specifically recorded that the writ petitions filed in the High  Court
were allowed  in  favour  of  the  teachers  holding  that  such  merger  is
contemplated  in  the  concerned  Government  notification.   All  that   is
recorded thereafter is concerning the Contempt Petition, which  was  pending
in the High Court, and which was concerning the non-implementation  of  High
Court’s  order,  which  had  directed  the  implementation  of   the   Govt.
notification dated 11.4.1977.  As  the  further  paragraphs  of  this  order
record, all that remained to be looked into was whether  the  implementation
has been done in the manner  required  by  the  notification.   It  is  also
relevant that before dismissing the Civil Appeal filed by the  State  Govt.,
the Court recorded that the Govt. was  also  thinking  of  implementing  the
notification in the manner suggested by the  respondents  before  the  Court
(that is the appellants herein).  Therefore, ultimately the  Court  directed
that  High  Court  will  examine  the  matter  and  if  satisfied  that  the
notification  has  not  been  implemented,  deal  with  the  contemnors   in
accordance with law. Therefore, the Court vacated the stay on  the  contempt
proceedings forthwith.
36.         Thus, all that remained thereafter to be done was to decide  the
pending Contempt Petition in Writ Petition CWJC No.8679 of 2002.  The  state
of Bihar understood the decisions so far  correctly,  and  therefore  passed
the resolution dated 7.7.2006 accepting the  view  point,  which  had  found
favour with the High Court as well as this Court,  recommending  the  merger
of the two cadres and upgradation of  the  teachers.   The  resolution  also
recorded that the merger would not have any serious  financial  implications
nor  would  it  affect  seniority  of  many  employees  since  most  of  the
employees, to be merged, had either retired or were on the  verge  of  their
retirement.
37.         In this background when the Bihar  Education  Service  employees
filed their Writ Petition being No.CWJC 10091 of 2006, the State  Government
rightly defended  its  resolution  dated  7.7.2006.   However,  the  learned
Single Judge failed to understand the import of the decision of this  Court,
and thought that he had the liberty to reopen the  controversy  despite  the
decisions rendered in the first  two  rounds.   He,  therefore,  passed  the
order allowing that Writ Petition. Now  what  we  find  is  that  the  State
Government  once  again  changed  its  stand,  and  issued  a   Notification
canceling the Resolution dated 7.7.2006. And when the  appellants  preferred
their LPA, the State Government continued to maintain its changed  position.
 To say  the  least  this  was  not  expected  from  the  State  Government.
Unfortunately enough, the Division Bench also approved  this  re-opening  of
the controversy once again.
38.         In the present appeals we are concerned  with  the  legality  of
the Govt. Resolution dated 7.7.2006 which the State  Govt.  defended  before
the single judge but gave up the defence in the appeal before  the  Division
Bench. The State Govt. went to the extent of contending  that  the  decision
in CWJC No.8679/2002 could not be treated as binding, although it  had  been
confirmed by Division Bench and by  this  Court.   Unfortunately  enough  we
must record that the Division Bench  also  failed  to  interfere  with  this
digression on the part of the State Govt.  and  the  learned  Single  Judge.
The Division Bench ignored that, assuming that perhaps two  views  could  be
canvassed earlier while interpreting the notification dated  11.4.1977,  the
order dated 19.4.2006 passed by this Court at the end of  the  second  round
of these proceedings left no ambiguity whatsoever, and the State  Govt.  was
expected  to  follow  and  honour  the  same.   The  State  Govt.  did   act
accordingly, and issued the Govt. resolution dated 7.7.2006  to  honour  the
judgments.  But immediately after the decision of the single judge  in  CWJC
10091 of 2006, went to the other extreme to rescind the  same,  and  not  to
defend it in appeal.  We have noted the contents  of  the  Govt.  resolution
dated 7.7.2006.  In our view it is well reasoned and justifiably  issued  to
reduce the rigour of stagnation.  Whether the resolution of the problem  was
seen as based on the notification of 11.4.1977 or  independently  under  the
resolution dated 7.7.2006, there was no reason to interfere therein.
39.    The hierarchy of the Courts requires the High Courts also  to  accept
the decision of this Court, and its interpretation of the orders  issued  by
the executive.  Any departure therefrom will lead only to  indiscipline  and
anarchy.  The High Courts cannot ignore  Article  141  of  the  Constitution
which clearly states, that the law declared by this Court is binding on  all
Courts within the territory of India.  As observed by this Court in para  28
of the State of West Bengal and others  Vs.  Shivananda  Pathak  and  others
reported in 1998 (5) SCC 513:-
           “If a judgment is overruled by the higher  court,  the  judicial
      discipline requires that the judge whose judgment  is  overruled  must
      submit to that judgment. He cannot, in  the  same  proceedings  or  in
      collateral proceedings between the same parties, rewrite the overruled
      judgment..........”


      In the same vein we may state that when the judgment  of  a  Court  is
confirmed by the higher court, the judicial discipline requires  that  Court
to accept that judgment, and it should not in collateral  proceedings  write
a judgment contrary to the confirmed judgment.  We  may  as  well  note  the
observations of Krishna Iyer, J. in Fuzlunbi Vs. K. Khader Vali and  another
reported in 1980 (4) SCC 125:-
           “…….No judge in India, except a  larger  Bench  of  the  Supreme
      court, without a departure from judicial discipline can whittle  down,
      wish away or be unbound by the ratio of the judgment  of  the  Supreme
      Court.”


40.         That apart, even if  one  looks  to  the  merits  of  the  rival
contentions, there is no dispute that although the rules do  provide  for  a
channel of promotion to the subordinate teachers, actually  the  chances  of
promotion for them are very less.  There is a serious stagnation as  far  as
the subordinate teachers are  concerned.   The  Saran  Singh  Committee  was
essentially constituted to go into this very issue.  As  can  be  seen  from
the report of the committee, the various service associations in  the  State
were clamouring for appropriate provision for  promotion  on  par  with  the
Bihar Engineering Service.  It is true that  the  report  of  the  committee
does refer to the 59 posts in the miscellaneous cadre  while  examining  the
problem.  However, after directing the shifting  of  the  engineers  in  the
Education Department to the Public Works Department, and the doctors to  the
Health Services in sub-clause (1) and  (2)  of  para  11.10,  the  committee
recommended in sub-clause (3) that “the remaining posts should  be  included
in the general cadre and manned by officers of Bihar  Education  Service  as
far as possible”.  The notification issued by the State Govt.  on  11.4.1977
approved the recommendation of the committee, but  the  wording  used  while
approving the recommendation is bit different.
41.         It cannot be disputed that it was for the State  Govt.  to  take
appropriate decision on the recommendation.   The  recommendations  made  by
the committee will of course have to be seen as the material  placed  before
the Govt.  However, ultimately, it is the decision of  the  Govt.  which  is
relevant and therefore one has to look at the wording  in  the  notification
of the State Govt.  Here the approved recommendation in the wording used  by
the State Govt. is as follows:-
           “Various Posts such as Teacher (except the teachers of Netarhat)
      and the posts of Stadium managers etc should be included in the  Bihar
      Education Service cadre and  the  Officers  of  the  cadre  should  be
      appointed               on                these                posts.”
                                                      (emphasis supplied)

      This notification was clearly understood by the Education  Department.
Earlier it had prepared  the  draft  resolution  for  the  approval  of  the
Finance Department recommending the merger of the  two  cadres.   And  later
the State  Govt.  had  also  rightly  passed  the  resolution  7.7.2006  (in
concurrence with the Finance Department) after the decision  of  this  Court
at the end of the second round of litigation.
42.          Much  emphasis  was  laid  by  the  Bihar   Education   Service
Association on the absence of common service rules, to oppose the merger  of
the subordinate service employees into the State Service Class-II.  In  this
context we must note that the decision to merge the cadre  is  a  matter  of
policy as held by this Court in S.P. Shivprasad Pipal  Vs.  Union  of  India
and others reported in 1998 (4) SCC 598.  It is for the state to  decide  as
to which cadres should be merged so long as the decision  is  not  arbitrary
or unreasonable.  As stated earlier, the resolution dated 7.7.2006  is  well
reasoned and justified, and cannot be called arbitrary  or  unreasonable  to
be hit by Article 14.  It deserved to be upheld.  It is  possible  that  the
merger may affect the prospects of some  employees  but  this  cannot  be  a
reason to set-aside  the  merger.   Once  the  State  Govt.  has  taken  the
necessary decision to merge the two cadres in a given case, the State  Govt.
is expected to follow it by framing the necessary rules.
43.         One of the pleas raised by the employees of the Bihar  Education
Service was that the subordinate  teachers  did  not  belong  to  the  State
Service. We may note at this stage that in their list of  dates  and  events
of the Civil Appeals, the appellants have specifically referred to the  fact
that these subordinate services are included in  Appendix-16  of  the  Bihar
Service Code, and therefore, it is contended that it will  be  incorrect  to
state that the subordinate service is not a part of the State Service.    If
we refer to the code we find that  all  the  posts  in  subordinate  service
other than those classified as  Class-I  and  Class-II  State  Services  are
mentioned at Item 119 in  Appendix-16  of  the  Bihar  Service  Code,  1952.
Thus, there is no merit in this objection as well.
44.         This entire discussion leads us to only one conclusion that  the
learned Single Judge who heard the petition CWJC No.10091/2006, which  began
the third round of  litigation  filed  on  behalf  of  the  Bihar  Education
Service Association, had no business  to  re-open  the  entire  controversy,
even otherwise.  The State Govt.  had  already  passed  a  resolution  dated
7.7.2006 after the order of this Court  dated  19.4.2006.   While  examining
the legality of that resolution (which was defended by the  State  Govt.  at
this stage before the learned Single Judge) the entire controversy was  once
again gone into. The law of finality of decisions which is enshrined in  the
principle of res-judicata or principles analogous thereto, does  not  permit
any such re-examination, and the learned Judge clearly failed  to  recognize
the same.
45.         For the reasons stated above, these appeals (arising out of  SLP
Nos.26675-76 of 2010) are allowed.  The judgment and  order  passed  by  the
Division Bench of Patna High Court in LPA No.418/2009 and other  LPAs  dated
21.5.2010, and that of the learned Single Judge  dated  31.10.2007  in  CWJC
No.8679/2002 are set-aside and the said Writ Petition is  hereby  dismissed.
Consequently the  notification  dated  19.11.2007  issued  pursuant  to  the
decision of the Single Judge will also stand  quashed  and  set-aside.   The
State Govt. Resolution dated 7.7.2006 is upheld.  The  state  shall  proceed
to act accordingly.  I.A. Nos.19-20/2011 are dismissed.  As  stated  by  Mr.
Patwalia, learned senior counsel  for  the  appellants,  the  appellants  no
longer press for the action for contempt arising out of  CWJC  No.8679/2002.
Contempt Petition Nos. 386-387/2011, will also  accordingly  stand  disposed
of, as not pressed.
46.         The attitude of the  State  Govt.  in  this  matter  has  caused
unnecessary anxiety to a large number of teachers.  
The  State  Govt.  must
realise that in a country where there is so much illiteracy and where  there
are a large number of first generation students, the  role  of  the  primary
and  secondary  teachers  is  very  important.   
They  have  to  be  treated
honourably and given appropriate  pay  and  chances  of  promotion.
 It  is
certainly not expected of the State Govt. to  drag  them  to  the  Court  in
litigation for years together.
47.         Though the appeals stand disposed of as above,
we do record  our
strong displeasure for the manner in  which  the  State  of  Bihar  kept  on
changing its stand from time to time.  
This is not expected from  the  State
Govt.  
The manner in which the learned Single Judge proceeded with the  Writ
Petition No.1009/2006  to  reopen  the  entire  controversy,  and  also  the
Division Bench in LPA No.418/2003 in approving that  approach  is  also  far
from satisfactory.  
If the orders passed by this Court  were  not  clear  to
the State Govt. or any party, it could have certainly approached this  Court
for the clarification thereof.
But it could not have setup a contrary  plea
in a collateral proceeding.  
We do not expect  such  an  approach  from  the
State Govt. and least from the High Court.  Having stated this, although  we
have expressed out displeasure about the approach of the  State  Government,
we refrain from passing any order as to costs.
                                             …………………………………..J.
                                             ( Surinder Singh Nijjar )


                                             …………………………………..J.
                                             ( H.L. Gokhale  )
New Delhi
Dated: November 23, 2011