Laxman Raut, Son of Sri Pyare Raut, Vs Bihar, Through Commissioner-cum-secretary, - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
[r.v. raveendran; a. k. patnaik] indian penal code section 452 - house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault or wrongful restraint -- after investigation, the police filed two challans on 02.02.2006 before the judicial magistrate, first class, ludhiana. after further investigation, the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, submitted his report to the deputy inspector general of police, ludhiana range. the relevant portion of the report of the superintendent of police, city-ii, ludhiana, which contains his conclusions after further investigation, is extracted herein below: "i found during my investigation that mohan singh, son of shri sher singh , dharmatma singh, harpal singh, jagdev singh and bhupinder singh, sons of mohan singh, residents of pullanwal, sold one plot of 1 kanal 13 marlas on 09.03.2004 to bharpur sigh, harnek singh, sons of balbir singh, jagjit singh, son of amarjit singh, gurcharan singh, son of hari dass and jagdev singh, son of harpal singh, resident of phulanawal through registered sale deed vasikha no.23895 and the mutation no.10940 duly entered in the name of purchasing party. for deciding the issue, we must first refer to the provisions of section 173 of the cr.p.c. under which the police submits reports after investigation and after further investigation, section 190 of the cr. p.c. under which the magistrate takes cognizance of an offence upon a police report and section 482 of the cr.p.c. under which the high court exercises its powers to quash the criminal proceedings. report of police officer on completion of investigation. cognizance of offences by magistrate. sub-section (8) of section 173 further provides that where upon further investigation, the officer in charge of the police station obtains further evidence, oral or documentary, he shall also forward to the magistrate a further report regarding such evidence and the provisions of sub-section (2) of section 173, cr.p.c., shall, as far as may be, apply in relation to such report or reports as they apply in relation to a report forwarded under sub-section (2). thus, the report under sub-section (2) of section 173 after the initial investigation as well as the further report under sub-section (8) of section 173 after further investigation constitute "police report" and have to be forwarded to the magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence. r.p. kapur moved the punjab high court under section 561-a of the code of criminal procedure for quashing the proceedings initiated by the first information report. 1.navaniti prasad singh, j. the two petitioners have filed this writ petition virtually making a claim that they be treated as government teachers and pay accordingly from the time take over of their school with their services. this writ petition was filed in the year 1994 and soon thereafter in 1995 it was dismissed. the matter went to intra-court appeal where also petitioners did not succeed then the matter went to the apex court. the apex court remanded this matter to this court for a decision on merits on the material available on record. it is under these circumstances the matter has now been heard for its final disposal.2.petitioners' claim as set up from the detail pleadings as made before the apex court is that in the year 1980 a harijan primary school was decided to be set up by the local harijan people of bhatwan in december 1982. one harijan decided to donate the land for the school and from the local contribution the school was started. petitioners further case is that they were recruited by the managing committee being the founder members of the school as teachers. their further case is that the district board which had the authority then took a decision in 1983 to take over the school as a government school. after take over of the school as government school, as the two petitioners were untrained teachers, they were sent by the government for two years training. thereafter, when they returned they were not being posted on the plea that there was no vacancy left in the school. ultimately with great difficulty after several years they were appointed as government teachers. in these circumstances, relief sought for is that they should be treated as government teachers from the time the school was taken over in 1983. similar pleading is there though in slight vague terms in the writ petition.3.upon request of the court, the writ petitioners annexed the copies of the s.l.p. and the counter affidavit filed therein by the state. in the present writ petition also counter affidavits have been filed. the stand of the state is clear. the district board, which was competent in 1983 to take a decision to set up a primary school, set up the school and one trained government teacher was sent to the said school as the said school was a single unit school. the specific stand of the state is that the impression that was sought to be created by the then district education officer that the school was taken over and there were other teachers including petitioners who were working in the school and on that plea furnishing for them to be sent for training are false and manipulated for which serious departmental action was taken against the said officer. the government stand is that there is only one school which was set up by the district board was single unit school and it does not recognize or take responsibility of the petitioners who are being thrust upon the school. what has been submitted on behalf of the state is that in december 1982 a harijan decided to donate some of his land. the district board accepted and decided to set up a school. it was accordingly done and trained government teacher was appointed for that school. what appears is that taking advantage of this situation, petitioners have set up a plea that school has actually been set up in 1980 as a harijan school and apart from others they were appointed as teachers therein.4.learned counsel for the state points out from the gift deed of land dated 06.12.1982 which clearly states that a harijan school is running without any building, any land, any gray filed and without any premises. he submits that this is clearly showed that a school was running privately somewhere in someone's house but surely it was not a formal school. the formal school came into being only when in 1983 the district board resolved to set up the school on land donated under the said gift deed. being a district board school, government teacher was appointed. petitioners are wrongly claiming to be in a pre-existing school and with connivance of one local officer managed to convey the idea that it was a school taken over by the government with them as the teacher and then managed to get teacher's training done at government expense. not a chit of paper was produced to establish that any school was taken over by the district board or the government much less with petitioners as the teachers. nothing is shown as to whether petitioners were ever paid a single pie much less from the government.5.in my view, it is well settled that petitioners have to succeed on their own pleadings and on their own merit. they cannot succeed because of any default of the respondents. in the present case, as has been noticed, petitioners have not able to bring on record a single document showing their appointment, showing take over of the school by the government rather by bringing on record the deed of gift. it is clear that the school had, if at all a nomadic existence, of no significance prior to intervention of the district board after land was donated. in such a situation, relying on certain dubious communications of erring official then cannot perfect their case for grant of any relief.6.in such view of the matter, apart from others the facts being in serious controversy this court is inapt to grant any relief in the matter.

Judgment:
1.Navaniti Prasad Singh, J. The two petitioners have filed this writ petition virtually making a claim that they be treated as Government teachers and pay accordingly from the time take over of their school with their services. This writ petition was filed in the year 1994 and soon thereafter in 1995 it was dismissed. The matter went to intra-Court appeal where also petitioners did not succeed then the matter went to the Apex Court. The Apex Court remanded this matter to this Court for a decision on merits on the material available on record. It is under these circumstances the matter has now been heard for its final disposal.

2.Petitioners' claim as set up from the detail pleadings as made before the Apex Court is that in the year 1980 a Harijan Primary School was decided to be set up by the local Harijan people of Bhatwan in December 1982. One Harijan decided to donate the land for the school and from the local contribution the school was started. Petitioners further case is that they were recruited by the managing committee being the founder members of the school as teachers. Their further case is that the District Board which had the authority then took a decision in 1983 to take over the school as a Government school. After take over of the school as Government school, as the two petitioners were untrained teachers, they were sent by the Government for two years training. Thereafter, when they returned they were not being posted on the plea that there was no vacancy left in the school. Ultimately with great difficulty after several years they were appointed as Government teachers. In these circumstances, relief sought for is that they should be treated as Government teachers from the time the school was taken over in 1983. Similar pleading is there though in slight vague terms in the writ petition.

3.Upon request of the Court, the writ petitioners annexed the copies of the S.L.P. and the counter affidavit filed therein by the State. In the present writ petition also counter affidavits have been filed. The stand of the State is clear. The District Board, which was competent in 1983 to take a decision to set up a Primary School, set up the school and one trained Government teacher was sent to the said school as the said school was a single unit school. The specific stand of the State is that the impression that was sought to be created by the then District Education Officer that the school was taken over and there were other teachers including petitioners who were working in the school and on that plea furnishing for them to be sent for training are false and manipulated for which serious departmental action was taken against the said officer. The Government stand is that there is only one school which was set up by the District Board was single unit school and it does not recognize or take responsibility of the petitioners who are being thrust upon the school. What has been submitted on behalf of the State is that in December 1982 a Harijan decided to donate some of his land. The District Board accepted and decided to set up a school. It was accordingly done and trained Government teacher was appointed for that school. What appears is that taking advantage of this situation, petitioners have set up a plea that school has actually been set up in 1980 as a Harijan school and apart from others they were appointed as teachers therein.

4.Learned counsel for the State points out from the gift deed of land dated 06.12.1982 which clearly states that a Harijan school is running without any building, any land, any gray filed and without any premises. He submits that this is clearly showed that a school was running privately somewhere in someone's house but surely it was not a formal school. The formal school came into being only when in 1983 the District Board resolved to set up the school on land donated under the said gift deed. Being a District Board school, Government teacher was appointed. Petitioners are wrongly claiming to be in a pre-existing school and with connivance of one local officer managed to convey the idea that it was a school taken over by the Government with them as the teacher and then managed to get teacher's training done at Government expense. Not a chit of paper was produced to establish that any school was taken over by the District Board or the Government much less with petitioners as the teachers. Nothing is shown as to whether petitioners were ever paid a single pie much less from the Government.

5.In my view, it is well settled that petitioners have to succeed on their own pleadings and on their own merit. They cannot succeed because of any default of the respondents. In the present case, as has been noticed, petitioners have not able to bring on record a single document showing their appointment, showing take over of the school by the Government rather by bringing on record the deed of gift. It is clear that the school had, if at all a nomadic existence, of no significance prior to intervention of the District Board after land was donated. In such a situation, relying on certain dubious communications of erring official then cannot perfect their case for grant of any relief.

6.In such view of the matter, apart from others the facts being in serious controversy this Court is inapt to grant any relief in the matter.