The State of Bihar (Now the State of Jharkhand) and ors. Vs. Shri Mahesh Thakur - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

- constitution of india. articles 12 & 226: [m. karpaga vinayagam, c.j., narendra nath tiwari & d.p.singh, jj] writ petition - maintainability - whether state co-operative milk producers federation ltd., is a state within meaning of article 12 ? - held, from perusal of relevant rules of byelaws, it is clear that state government has no role to play either in policy decision for raising funds for federation or its expenditure and thus have no financial control. further there is nothing to indicate that government has any functional and administrative control over federation. state government has no role to play in matter of appointment of any of officials of federation including managing director. federation is totally independent in all respects and in no way subservient to state government in conduct of its business. federation in no way can be termed as agency of state government and does not come within meaning of article 12 of constitution. writ petitions against federation is not maintainable. .....were taken over as headmaster and for that he continued to receive salary of a teacher. in the year 1998 he was transferred to another school vide order dated 30th december, 1998 which was challenged in the writ petition wherein in view of the interim order, he continued to function as in-charge headmaster and ultimately the respondent-mahesh thakur superannuated on 31st january, 2003.3. the writ petition was taken up for hearing by the learned single judge who allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 12th january, 2004.4. counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-state rightly pointed out that the writ petition against the order of transfer had become infructuous on 31st january, 2003, the day when the respondent-mahesh thakur had superannuated. he, having superannuated, there was no oc casion for the learned single judge to direct the state to treat the respondent-mahesh thakur as headmaster, as was prayed in the writ petition.5. we have also noticed the prayer made in the writ petition and found that the respondent-writ petitioner never prayed for regularization of his services nor prayed for consequential monetary benefits of headmaster for the period.....

Judgment:

ORDER

1. Heard the parties.

2. The respondent-Mahesh Thakur was a teacher in a private school, namely, Murma High School, Murma. The school was recognized by the State Government with effect from 1st February, 1977 by an order dated 23rd June, 1977. The respondent-Mahesh Thakur was recognized as Incharge Headmaster of the said school. The school was taken over with effect from 2nd October, 1980 and respondent's service was also taken over and he was shown as In-charge Headmaster. But no order was issued appointing the respondent-Mahesh Thakur as a regular Headmaster nor his services were taken over as Headmaster and for that he continued to receive salary of a teacher. In the year 1998 he was transferred to another school vide order dated 30th December, 1998 which was challenged in the writ petition wherein in view of the interim order, he continued to function as In-charge Headmaster and ultimately the respondent-Mahesh Thakur superannuated on 31st January, 2003.

3. The writ petition was taken up for hearing by the learned single Judge who allowed the writ petition by the impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2004.

4. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant-State rightly pointed out that the writ petition against the order of transfer had become infructuous on 31st January, 2003, the day when the respondent-Mahesh Thakur had superannuated. He, having superannuated, there was no oc casion for the learned single Judge to direct the State to treat the respondent-Mahesh Thakur as Headmaster, as was prayed in the writ petition.

5. We have also noticed the prayer made in the writ petition and found that the respondent-writ petitioner never prayed for regularization of his services nor prayed for consequential monetary benefits of Headmaster for the period from 2nd October, 1980 to 31st January, 2003. No such relief was sought for.

6. In the circumstances, the learned single Judge should not have entertained the writ petition against the order of transfer, the writ petition having become infructuous nor should have directed the appellant-State to regularize the services of the respondent and to provide consequential benefits thereof, who had already retired from the services of the State. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 12th January, 2004 passed by the learned Single Judge in CWJC No. 401 of 1999(R) is set aside. The writ petition is dismissed. The letters patent appeal is allowed.