There shall be a full Court farewell reference on the April 9, 2025 in the Centenary Hall of Patna High Court in the honour of Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan, who is going to superannuate on that day after six years as a judge of the High Court.
Justice Sharan enrolled as an advocate on September 2, 1991 in Patna High Court. He practiced in various Criminal, Constitutional and Service Matters in Patna High Court. As an advocate, he was empanelled as a Central Government Counsel at Patna. He also served as Assistant Solicitor General, Government of India, Standing Counsel, Central Government Counsel, CAT at Patna, Counsel for BSNL, etc. He was elevated as a judge of Patna High Court on April 17, 2019.
In Kumari Anjana vs. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar & Ors. (2025), Justice Anjani Kumar Sharan concluded:"In my considered opinion, the designations of Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officer on Special Duty (University) are positions of high responsibility and integrity, as it is their bounden duty to assist the Hon'ble Chancellor in passing just, fair, and legal orders or directions. However, in the present case, I find that these responsibilities have not only been overlooked by the concerned officials but that they have also deliberately concealed crucial facts, thereby misleading the Hon'ble Chancellor into passing an erroneous order. Consequently, I find it appropriate to hold that the concerned officials 'Officer on Special Duty (Judicial) and Officer on Special Duty (University)' are unfit for their respective positions and should be sent for appropriate training." He directed that "this order be placed before the Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice for appropriate action concerning Shri Balendra Shukla, Officer on Special Duty (Judicial), who holds the rank of Additional District and Sessions Judge and falls under the administrative jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Patna High Court. Furthermore, with respect to Shri Mahavir Prasad Sharma, Officer on Special Duty (University), the Court directs the Principal Secretary to the Hon'ble Governor to place the matter before the Hon'ble Chancellor for necessary action. Kumari Anjana has a doctorate from Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi. She had prayed for issuance of an appropriate writ/order or direction, in the nature of a Writ of Certiorari or any other appropriate writ/order or direction for quashing the order dated 26.09.2023 passed by the Chancellor of Universities, Bihar, as well as the consequential orde issued cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Deputy Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna; The other respondents were: Principal Secretary, Department of Social Welfare, Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Chancellor of Universities, Bihar, Vice Chancellor, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna and Registrar, Aryabhatta Knowledge University, Patna. The judgement was delivered on March 5, 2025. In the year 2025, his bench delivered 88 judgements. On the last date of his tenure he delivered tow judgements on April 8, 2025.
In Akhilendra Kuma & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Bihar & Ors., his 12-page long judgement granted relief to the petitioner by directing the State Government "to
take necessary steps to transfer petitioner to the 4th Year to Patna
Dental College, Patna, within a period of four weeks from the date of
receipt/production of a copy of this order."
In Anisha Raj vs. The State of Bihar & Ors, Justice Sharan's 11-page long judgement granted relief to the petitioner by directing the State Government "to take necessary steps to transfer petitioner to the 4th Year to Patna Dental College, Patna, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order."
In a judgement delivered on May 29, 2024 in Sandeep Kumar Jha & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors, Justice Sharan directed to the Bihar government to ensure equal treatment for contract teachers and guest teachers in the recruitment process conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC). This direction has led to the suspension of the BPSC's Teachers Recruitment Exam (TRE)-3. He opined that both the contract teachers and the guest teachers are discharging same duties as they are teaching the students in the school and there is no difference between them. The Court mandated that the state government must decide within a month to grant guest teachers five marks for each year of employment, up to a maximum of 25 marks, on par with the benefits already provided to contract teachers.
He observed: "The management of the Backward and Extremely Backward Classes Welfare Department has given the said grace marks to the contractual teachers not to the Guest Teacher. It is a policy matter of the State to grant grace marks to contractual basis teachers, not to Guest Teacher, which is a violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India". In his observation, he reiterated the similarity in duties performed by contract and guest teachers and mandated that guest teachers be entitled to similar marks for each year of employment, up to a maximum of 25 marks, as accorded to contract teachers. He wrote: "In my opinion, the Guest teachers are also entitled to 5 marks for each 1 year of employment and maximum 25 marks as given to the contract teachers. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the State Government is directed to take final decision to grant of 5 marks for each year of employment and maximum 25 marks to the guest teacher as given to the contract teachers, within one month. The Advertisement no. 22/24 dated 07.02.2024 is hereby stayed".
He stayed the TRE-3 advertisement No. 22/24 issued in February 2024 for School Teacher positions under the Education Department and SC & ST Welfare Department. The advertisement lacked provisions to grant marks to guest teachers who were previously employed, as specified by the requisitioning departments. Additionally, the TRE 3.0 exam conducted on March 15, 2024, was cancelled due to alleged question paper leaks. Highlighting the administrative tasks undertaken by guest teachers, including election duties and examination evaluations, the court noted the failure of the BPSC to extend the same preference marks to them in TRE 3.0 advertisements. With both sittings of TRE 3.0 cancelled due to alleged question paper leaks, the BPSC is expected to announce a new examination date following the elections. He directed the State government to make a final decision within one month regarding the grant of marks to guest teachers. He stayed government's advertisement no. 22/24, dated February 7, 2024.
The bench which included Justice Sharan delivered 449 judgements in 2024. Most of them were authored by the presiding judge.
In Veena Jha vs. Nalanda University Through Vice Chancellor, Rajgir, Nalanda & Ors. (2024), Justice Sharan observed:"Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for the arrear of salary of Rs. 68,053/- at the rate of interest at the rate of 4% per annum. The University is directed to pay the due amount of Rs.68,053/- along with the interest at the rate of 4% per annum. However, this interest rate will be calculated from the date the salary became due until the payment is made to her." He directed the respondent to issue a No Dues Certificate to the petitioner without any remarks from the Finance Department of the University and to settle her dues as previously directed within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of the order dated December 10, 2024.
In 2023, Justice Sharan bench delivered two judgements.
In Purushottam Kumar vs. The State of Bihar (2023), drawing on Supreme Court's decision in Baijnath & Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2017) 1 Supreme Court Case 101, Justice Sharan observed:"Proof of cruelty or harassment by the husband or her relative or the person charged is thus the sine qua non to inspirit the statutory presumption, to draw the person charged within the coils thereof. If the prosecution fails to demonstrate by cogent, coherent and persuasive evidence to prove such fact, the person accused of either of the above referred offences cannot be held guilty by taking refuge only of the presumption to cover up the shortfall in proof."
He concluded that "the prosecution has utterly and miserably failed to bring home the charges levelled against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts by adducing convincing, cogent, consistent and wroth credence ocular and documentary evidence. Hence, the impugned Judgment and order of conviction and sentence passed by learned lower court is set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. As the appellant is in custody, he is directed to be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case." This criminal appeal was allowed by judgement dated April 19, 2023.
The petitioner had prayed to the Court for commanding the concerned respondents to give due reasons for non-renewal for her contract and take decision based on due process and which are not seen to be arbitrary and vindictive. It also prayed for commanding the concerned respondents to release/remit the dues of the petitioner which was pending since April, 2019.
In 2022, the bench which included Justice Sharan delivered 207 judgements in 2024. Most of them were authored by the presiding judge.
In Birendra Prasad Yadav vs. Central Bureau of Investigation, Delhi (2022), Justice Sharan observed: "the impugned order dated 30.05.2022, passed by learned Special Judge, C.B.I.-II, Patna by which the learned court has been pleased to reject an application filed by the petitioner under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure for grant of exemption from personal appearance and for permission to be represented through his Advocate to face the trial in Special Case No.05 of 2020/R.C. Case No. 11/A/2017, arising out of Bhagalpur Kotwali P.S. Case No.494/2014, dated 07.08.2017, does not call for any interference by this Court. The present case is of the year 2014 (2nd Supplementary charge sheet dated 30.12.2019, petitioner has been made accused in the present case) and, as such, it requires to be disposed of at an early date and, accordingly, the Special Judge is directed to dispose of the case at the earliest. With the aforesaid observation and direction, this application stands dismissed."
Notably, Ravi Shankar Prasad was the Union Minister for Law and Justice during 2016–2021.
No comments:
Post a Comment