Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CWJC No.15373 of 2008 (5) dt.20-09-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15373 of 2008 ====================================================== Chulhai Thakur son of Gopichand Thakur resident of village Gonahi Bishunpur, P.O. Bhutahi, P.S. Sonbarsa, District Sitamarhi (Bihar) .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through its secretary, Department of Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna . 2. The district Magistrate, Sitamarhi, P.O. +P.S. – Dumra, District Sitamarhi 3. Sri Kishore Kumar Prasad, Block Development Officer, P.O. +P.S. Sonbarsa, District – Sitamarhi. 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, P.O. +P.S. Sonbarsa, Block Education Extension Officer, P.O. +P.S. – Sonbarsa. 5. The Gram Panchayat Bishunpur Gohahi through its Secretary at Gram Panchayat Office Bishunpur Gohahi, P.S. Sonbarsa, District Sitamarhi. 6. Lal Baboo Mahto, S/o- Bhajju Mahto Village Madhuban, Block + P.S.- Sonbarsa, District – Sitamarhi. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. Mr. Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar Ambasta, G.P. – 14 Mr. Sanjay Kumar Pandey, AC to GP -14 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 5 20-09-2013 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner and the State. No one appears on behalf of the respondent no. 6. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 22nd of August 2008 (Annexure-1) terminating the services of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher in light of the order of the Block Development Officer, Sonbarsa vide memo no. 51 dated
Legal Reasoning
14th of August 2008. The petitioner is further aggrieved by the order dated 29th of December 2008 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi, whereby the appeal of the petitioner against his termination was Patna High Court CWJC No.15373 of 2008 (5) dt.20-09-2013 rejected. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that petitioner was engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the month of February, 2003 for the period of 11 months and after expiry of the aforesaid period, the petitioner was re- engaged as a Shiksha Mitra by the said Gram Panchayat Raj ,Bishunpur, where the petitioner was working as Shiksha Mitra in Government Primary School, Gonahi, Bishunpur with effect from 4th of February 2006 for another period of 11 months vide Annexure-11 to the rejoinder of the counter affidavit, filed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that on coming into force of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Condition Service) Rules 2006, the petitioner acquired the statutory status of the Panchayat Teacher. There is no allegation of any omission or commission on the part of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher. The irregularity, if any, was with respect to the engagement as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. It is further submitted that there is absolute no complaint with respect to his engagement/appointment as a Shiksha Mitra with effect from 4th of February 2006 on the basis of which, the petitioner having found actually worked, became the Panchayat Teacher on 1st of July 2006. It is accordingly, submitted that the order, terminating the services of the petitioner as contained in Annexure -1 in light of the order of the Block Development Officer (Annexure-2) deserves Patna High Court CWJC No.15373 of 2008 (5) dt.20-09-2013 to be quashed and since the application filed by the petitioner before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority was not required since the matter relates to the engagement of the Shiksha Mitra only. Accordingly, the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure -5 is of no legal consequence. Learned counsel for the State submits that the petitioner was engaged as Shiksha Mitra in the month of February 2003, which was irregular for the reasons that the petitioner belonged to the caste of LOHAR within the backward class category and not extremely backward caste. The petitioner was engaged against the vacant seat of extremely backward caste as his engagement as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003 was illegal. However, counsel for the state is not in a position to refute the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner that any complaint was made against the engagement of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2006 nor there was any complaint against the petitioner with respect to his appointment as a Panchayat Teacher with effect from 01.07.2006, after coming into force of the statutory rule. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings as also the order as contained in Annexures -1, 2 and 5, it would appear that the private respondents made a complaint before the Block Development Officer with respect to the engagement of the petitioner as a Patna High Court CWJC No.15373 of 2008 (5) dt.20-09-2013 Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. Such complaint was made before the competent authority to look into the grievance of the engagement of the Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003. It appears that the private respondents made a complaint in the year 2008, after long delay and that too, not against the engagement of the petitioner on the post of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2006 nor there is any complaint with respect to the omission or commission on the part of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher. This apart, on perusal of the order passed by the Block Development Officer vide memo no. 51 dated 14th of August 2008 on the basis of which, the Panchayat Secretary issued the letter terminating the services of the petitioner does not disclose any irregularities with respect to the engagement as Shiksha Mitra much less any irregularity or any commission or omission on the part of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher and, as such, in my opinion, the order terminating the services of the petitioner vide order dated 22nd of August 2008 as also the order as per memo no. 51 dated 14th of August 2008 (Annexure-1 and 2) as well as the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority (Annexure-5) cannot be sustained in law. The aforesaid orders are accordingly, quashed.
Decision
The writ application stands disposed of. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)