RAVI PRAKASH & ORS v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS.

Bathua. The petitioners came to this Court in CWJC No. 4571 of 2008 disposed on 8.12.2008. On their submission this Court held; (a) Under the statutory rules then existing the authority to interfere in the selection/appointment was vested in the Block Development Officer and the District Magistrate had no jurisdiction to issue direction, (b) that the enquiry on basis of which actions were taken was ex parte in nature. The impugned order setting aside the appointment of the petitioners was quashed. Liberty was thereafter granted to a 2 person aggrieved by the order to agitate the matter before the Appellate Authority if so advised, constituted subsequently in whom the earlier powers under Rule 18 vested in the Block Development Officer stood transferred. From the earlier order of this Court in CWJC No. 1620 of 2008 at Annexure 20 it does not appear that the complainant at whose instance the enquiry was held and termination order passed was impleaded as party respondent. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that she had in fact filed intervention application. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that after the enquiry report on basis of which the appointments were cancelled was quashed the respondents were required to hold fresh enquiry. No fresh enquiry has been held and the Appellate Authority on basis of the fresh complaint of aforesaid Geeta Singh has proceeded to pass the impugned order on basis of the earlier enquiry report itself. The submission is that the order has been passed on basis of a non-existing enquiry report. Learned Counsel next submits that the original objection of the said Geeta Singh was much belated and not within the time prescribed under Rule 9(7) of the statutory rules framed for appointment in 2006. Learned Counsel for the State submits that there is no illegality in the impugned order. The issue of appointment of teachers in the State is creating an insurmountable amount of litigations. This Court refrains from making any comment on this nature of the 3 litigations which perhaps may have been avoidable. Some of them are genuine, some are not. The matters keep going forward and back between this Court and the authorities when this Court passes orders which the authorities either refuse to implement or fail to understand or do not wish to understand when litigants come running back to this Court. This Court therefore proposes to consider this matter in detail on issues of law so that the litigations may be brought to an end. After the order dated 8.12.2008 when further proceedings were initiated before the Appellate Authority, the petitioners had full opportunity to contest and file their replies. At paragraph 70 of the writ application it is stated that they appeared on the date fixed i.e. 7.2.2009 and “verbally replied satisfactorily’. They even contend that they made enquiries from the Appellate Authority if the Appellate Authority required documents from them. The Appellate Authority told them that there was no need for written reply by them or to give any supporting document in support of their claim. In view of the aforesaid observation of the Appellate Authority “the petitioners had no option but to reply verbally”. The petitioners then appeared on 19.2.2009 and again sought permission to file written reply with supporting documents but the Appellate Authority told them that there was no need for written reply with supporting document when they had no option except to place the facts. A litigant has to be vigilant in the litigation. He alleges that he is being wronged. But is unable to explain that when he went to the Appellate Authority not on one date but on two dates 4 he chose not to file reply in his defence and urges that the authority adjudicating advised him not to file reply as it was not necessary. This Court finds it difficult to accept this proposition. Even if the Appellate Authority made this suggestion the petitioners were still conscious of the need for them to file a reply but they refrained from doing so. It is evident from the use of the word “option” by them. It clearly connotes that they opted not to file reply. On the issue that the enquiry report was quashed and therefore the respondents were bound to hold fresh enquiry and the Appellate Authority could not have proceeded on the previous enquiry report, does not impress the Court. The enquiry report dated 25.9.2007 has two salient aspects; (a) that the first counseling done was without proper publication of notice to all concerned, (b) that there appeared to be large scale irregularities in the appointment requiring cancellation of entire panel. This Court has already observed that it proposes to bring the litigation to an end. The order of this Court in CWJC No. 1620 of 2008 was on technicality and not on merits. Once the matter was being re-agitated the petitioners had adequate opportunity, even if the Appellate Authority was relying on the same report, to produce evidence that there had been proper publication of notice prior to counseling and that there had been no large scale irregularities so as to set aside the entire selection but that selection could have been set aside selectively of those whose appointment may have been illegal while that of the petitioners was legal. It has already been noticed above that the 5 petitioners opted not to file any reply. The only logical conclusion is that they were not in a position to meet the allegations in the enquiry report in the matter of any proper publication of notice before counseling and of large scale irregularities in the process of selection. The law stands well settled that where there are large scale irregularities in selection no individual notice is required as distinct from the case where there is individual irregularity necessitating notice to individual. This Court therefore finds no infirmity in the order of the Appellate Authority on the argument that the earlier enquiry report became non-existent for all intents and purpose. To this Court the intent and purport of the order dated 8.12.2008, while setting aside the enquiry report and simultaneously granting liberty to the aggrieved to re-agitate the matter before the Appellate Authority, was to permit the petitioners to meet the materials of the enquiry report. Once the petitioners were able to meet the materials of the enquiry report after filing reply, placed documentary evidence on record, the question of a fresh enquiry to be considered may or may not have arisen. The petitioners have only themselves to blame for their predicament. This Court is not satisfied that the impugned order warrants any interference. This writ application is dismissed. In pursuance of their initial appointment if the petitioners have actually worked and discharged duties as a teacher by attending class room till the date that their appointments came 6 to be set aside, this Court expects the respondents to consider any claim for their salary keeping in mind that they have utilised their services. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)