Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.896 of 2012 ====================================================== Ashok Kumar Son Of Sri Ganauri Yadav Resident Of Kurkuri, P.S.- Pinjarwa, District-Arwal .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Patna 2. The Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Arwal District-Arwal 3. The District Magistrate, Arwal District-Arwal 4. The District Programme Officer (Estab) Arwal, District-Arwal 5. The Blcok Development Officer, Kurtha, District-Arwal 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kurtha, District-Arwal 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Chamandi Bansi, District-Arwal 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chamandi Bansi, District- Arwal 9. Uday Singh Son Of Munni Singh Residing At Pondil, P.S.-Kurtha, District-Arwal .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20314 of 2011 ====================================================== Uday Kumar Sharma Son Of Shri Parmeshwar Sharma Resident Of Village And Post Office Pondil, P.S. Kurtha, District - Arwal Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Huamn Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Member District Teacher Appointment Appellate Authority, Arwal, District - Arwal 4. The District Education Officer, Arwal 5. The Block Education Officer, Sonbhadra, Suryapur Block, District - Arwal 6. Mukhia Gram Panchayat Chamandi, Block - Sonbhadra Banshi, Suryapur, District - Arwal 7. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Chamandi, Block Sonbhadra, Banshi, Suryapur, District - Arwal 8. Uday Singh Son Of Munni Singh Resident Of Village And P.O. Pondil, P.S. Kurtha, District – Arwal 9. Ashok Kumar, son of Ganauri Yadav, village Kurkuri, P.O. Pinzarwa, P.S. Kingar, Arwal .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.896 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binod Kumar, Adv. For Respondent np.9 : Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : SC4 Patna High Court CWJC No.896 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2013 2
Legal Reasoning
For intervener respondent : Mr. Vishwa Ranjan Chaoudhary, Adv. (In CWJC No.20314 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyanand Roy, Adv. For Respondent no.8 : Mr. Umesh Kumar, Adv. For the State : G.P.21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4 17-07-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. While the writ application as with regard to appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher on the basis of his qualification of Intermediate acquired from the Central Board of Higher Education cannot be held to be valid, inasmuch as the said qualification is not recognized by the State of Bihar, this Court while approving the aforesaid part of the order of the Tribunal would, however, hold that the direction of the Tribunal to appoint respondent no.9 in place of the petitioner was definitely not correct, inasmuch as once the vacancy on account of removal of the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Teacher had arisen the entire merit list had to be again worked out by way of issuance of notice of counseling to all the persons whose name were included in the merit list. In doing so, the case of respondent no.9 will have to be also included in view of the order passed by the Tribunal allowing his claim but then respondent no.9 cannot be appointed straightway if there are other candidates having higher marks than him. Patna High Court CWJC No.896 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2013 3 From perusal of Annexure 1, the merit list and the list of counseling dated 28.2.2009, it would appear that in the list of ten persons there are at least six of them who are having more than 75%, the marks of respondent no.9 and therefore, this Court would direct the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary of Chamandi Gram Panchayat in the district of Arwal to initiate a fresh process of counseling if the Panchayat decides to fill up the said post from the old panel. The Panchayat Secretary will therefore issue notice for counseling under registered cover to all the candidates whose names were included in the merit list except the petitioner because his appointment on the basis of invalid qualification cannot be now made. This Court, however, having noted the submission of Mr. Gyanand Roy that serial no.4 of the merit list, namely, Aman Kumar, son of Julum Prasad appears to have passed from an Institution outside the Bihar and most probably from the Central Board of Higher Education, inasmuch as his full marks alike the petitioner is 600 would direct the Panchayat Secretary to make a very careful verification of Aman Kumar and only if his qualification is recognized by the State of Bihar, he will be considered with other candidates. It is made clear that the appointment on account of Patna High Court CWJC No.896 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2013 4 vacancies caused by removal of the petitioner Ashok Kumar must be made from the best candidate in the merit list. To that extent this Court would also accede to the prayer of Om Prakash Ranjan, an intervener, to be considered against the vacancy caused on account of removal of Ashok Kumar, inasmuch as as per merit list he is only 2nd and if Santosh Kumar does not turn up and/or found ineligible for any reason he will have a better chance of being selected. Before parting with this Court must note one of the submissions made by Mr. Gyanand Roy appearing for the intervener Uday Kumar Sharma in C.W.J.C.No. 896/2012 and also a writ petitioner in the connected case C.W.J.C.No. 20314/2011 that the process of giving weightage by the Panchayat in the merit list, as contained in Annexure 2, is contrary to the provisions made in the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Awam Sewa Sarta) (Sanshodhan) Niyamawali, 2008. In this regard he has pointed out that the weightage of 20 marks (Ank) has to be added but in the present case it has been added with the percentage of total marks secured by the candidates. In other words, he would submit that the addition has been made by way of percentage and not marks which in turn would vitiate the preparation of the panel itself. Patna High Court CWJC No.896 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2013 5 In the considered opinion of this Court this submission of Mr. Roy has to be only noted for its being rejected. The amended provision is only clarification in the main Rule and determination of the merit point (Medha Ank) has already been included in the main Rule, whereas the percentage of qualifying examination and higher examination had to be clubbed together and divided for finding the merit point. In fact as per the Rules the same has to be arrived on the basis of percentage and when the Rule in this regard specifically says that 20 marks (Ank) has to be added in the merit point (Medha Ank) there can be no other way of putting that percentage of the academic qualification with 20 marks and that has been literally done while preparing Annexure 1, merit list. This Court therefore does not find any error in such merit list prepared by the Panchayat save and except that the name of respondent no.9 Uday Singh has not been included in the merit list. This Court would accordingly direct the Panchayat Secretary of Chamandi Panchayat to put the name of respondent no.9 Uday Singh at appropriate place in the merit list as directed by the Tribunal and consider the cases of all the eligible persons including respondent no.9 Uday Singh for his appointment strictly in accordance with law. Patna High Court CWJC No.896 of 2012 (4) dt.17-07-2013 6 Before parting with it is however made clear that since the second phase of appointment of teachers has been closed under the order of the State Government on 31.12.2010 nothing said in this order would come in the way of Panchayat to get the aforesaid vacant post filled up in the ongoing third phase of appointment of the teachers and in case such a decision is taken by the Panchayat the same shall be intimated to all concerned. With the aforementioned observations and directions,
Decision
both the writ applications are disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-