@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
1. The last submission of learned Counsel for the Petitioner was that an appropriate order be passed in this letters patent appeal. The Court did ask the Counsel whether he would like an order on a serious note or a lighter note? The hint apparently was not taken. Undaunted a bigamous husband has no regard for the law and would like to receive a prophylactic guard from the High Court to give him immunity for all times to come and make a laughing-stock out of the High Court.
2. The Court wonders if this was the responsibility of the lawyers to advise on such causes between the temptation of bigamy and continuing amorous adventures. One man, two women and a macho misadventure should not have been advised to come to the High Court to take a seal of approval to licentious affairs with two women and claim a prize as a government job for yet more affairs.
3. of the three persons, who had filed petitions seeking relief that they be granted appointment by the State of Bihar on the rule of harness or as compassionate appointment, two succeeded and she did not. The Petitioner was the one who did not. The petition itself should have been filed separately. However, the story which the Petitioner Appellant tells runs like this:
4. When his father died on a Class IV post, he applied for a job as a compassionate appointment. He faced a situation when the department concerned confronted him with an issue that he has married twice and under government regulations he would immediately come within the mischief of the Rule known as Bihar Government Servants Conduct Rules, 1976. The case of the State was that if a government servant marries again during the subsistency of a marriage, then the law does not permit bigamy. The government views such adulterous relationship as misconduct, with dismissal from service as penalty, criminal offence apart.
5. But in so far as Petitioner Appellant is concerned, he acknowledges the luxury of keeping two women. He seeks a compassionate appointment on the principle that such an appointment is to give immediate succor to the person who is to be given a government job on the death of a parent on a government employment.
6. But, the Petitioner cannot have the luxury to have two women under one roof, break the law, break the government regulations and to crown it all have an order from the High Court to give him a job. Tomorrow the Stats Respondents will virtually tell the High Court that it encourages bigamy and adultery, both.
7. When the Court asked learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner Appellant why his client took a second woman, the answer was that the first wife gave four daughters and he was looking for a son from the second woman and that Indian Society permits this. Does it?
8. The Petitioner Appellant and his Counsel seem to be under an impression that the desire for male progeny permits a license to bigamy. They should at least leave the law Courts out of this dirt. Bad habits taken note of make bad law also.
9. Such a case should not become a business for the profession. This is not for a lawyer''s brief. The second case, if filed, the Court will send it to the Magistrate to answer a charge for bigamy.
10. Dismissed.
