Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8929 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Bimal Kumar S/O Late Bhikho Prasad Singh, R/O Village - Narayanpur, P.O. Narayanpur, P.S. Sakatpur, District- Darbhanga 2. Smt. Sarita Kumari W/O Ranbir Singh, R/O Village - Chakjamal, P.O. Chakjamal, P.S. Desarai, District - Vaishali .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through The Commissioner Cum Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali 4. The District Education Officer, Vaishali 5. The Member, the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali 6. The Secretary, the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali 8. The Block Development Officer, Sahdare Buzurg Block, Distt. Vaishali 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sahdare Buzurg Block, Distict Vaishali 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Chakjamal, Block - Sahdare Buzurg Distt. Vaishali 11. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Chakjamal, Block Sahdare Buzurg District Vaishali 12. Shri Shivchandra Singh, son of Shri Devlal Singh, resident of Village Dhramdaspur, P.O. Deshri, District Vaishali .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Advocate For the S t a t e : A.C. to AAG-7 For Respondent No.12 : Mr. Ram Shankar Das, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 8 22-08-2013 Heard learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners and the respondent-State as also the learned counsel appearing for the newly added respondent no.12. 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.8929 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 2 / 6 The petitioners are aggrieved by the part of the order dated 17th of March, 2011 in Case No.HC-96/10 passed by the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority,Vaishali, as contained in Annexure 1, whereby their appointments were held to be illegal while dismissing the appeal of respondent no.12 against his non-selection to the post of Panchayat Teacher in question on the ground that the petitioners were appointed on the basis of training certificates which were forged as per the report of the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University. The petitioners are also aggrieved by the order rejecting the prayer for review of the aforesaid order vide order as per Memo No.22 dated 13th of January, 2012, as contained in Annexure 11 to I.A. No.1768 of 2013. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submits that while considering the appeal of respondent no.12, the appellate authority having found no merit in the said appeal dismissed the same by the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1. Learned counsel further submits that the appellate authority ought not to have proceeded further to examine the appointment of the petitioners since the grievance of respondent no.12 was to the effect that his application although was filed within time, but was not mentioned in the application receipt 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.8929 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 3 / 6 register which was, however, found not correct by the appellate authority. Learned counsel further submits that notwithstanding the above, the appointments of the petitioners were held to be illegal on the ground that the certificates on the basis of which they were appointed were found forged by the Controller of Examinations, Utkal University. The correct position is that the petitioners were appointed not on the basis of the certificate granted by the Utkal University whereas the appointments were made on the basis of the certificate granted by the Seva Bharati Adhyapan Mandir, Sevapuri, Varanasi. The certificate of Buniyadi Shiksha Visarat granted in favour of the petitioners is equivalent to B.T.C. as would be appearing from perusal of the certificates vide Annexure 3 series. It is further submitted that on perusal of the proceedings of the Employment Unit bearing the signature of the Mukhiya, the Panchayat Secretary and the Block Education Extension Officer it would appear that the appointments of the petitioners were not made on the basis of the B.Ed. certificate rather the appointments were made on the basis of the B.T.C. and as such, upon verification of their certificates having found correct, their appointments were approved vide proceedings no.25 dated 26.5.2007, as contained in Annexure 10 of the reply to the counter affidavit of respondent no.12. It is accordingly submitted 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.8929 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 4 / 6 that the appellate authority cannot hold the appointment of the petitioners being illegal and that too without examining the relevant records. It is thus submitted that the part of the order whereby the appointment of the petitioners were found illegal and the subsequent follow-up action terminating their services deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State as also respondent no.12 submits that the findings of the appellate authority that the documents on the basis of which the petitioners were appointed were forged ought not to be considered in a Writ proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution. Besides, the further stand of the State is to the effect that the petitioners had obtained the certificate of Buniyadi Shiksha Visarat, which is not equivalent to B.T.C., the requisite certificate for such appointment and as such, the order declaring the appointment of the petitioners being illegal is correct. In other words, they support the order under challenge. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings and upon perusal of the impugned order, as contained in Annexure 1, it would appear that the appellate authority upon considering the appeal filed by respondent no.12 having found no merit dismissed the appeal. However, while 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.8929 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 5 / 6 dismissing the appeal the appellate authority also considered the case of appointment of the petitioners and some other teachers. The appointment of the petitioners was held illegal on the ground that the basis for such appointment was the forged certificate as per the report of the Controller of Examinations of Utkal University whereas on perusal of the proceedings of the Employment Unit, as contained in Annexure 10, it would appear that the Employment Unit has categorically stated that the appointments of the petitioners were on the basis of the certificate of B.T.C. granted by the Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir, Sevapuri, Varanasi, as contained in Annexure 3 series and not on the basis of the certificate granted by the Utkal University and the appellate authority has held the appointment being illegal on the basis of the certificate of Utkal University. Besides the above, before declaring the appointment of the petitioners being illegal by the impugned order, the appellate authority did not consider this aspect of the matter and as such, the very basis of the order that the appointment of the petitioners was on the basis of the certificate granted by the Utkal University is not correct as would be appearing from the proceedings of the Employment Unit, as contained in Annexure 10. On perusal of Annexure 3 series it would appear that the Buniyadi Siksha Visarat is equivalent to B.T.C. and as such, the 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.8929 of 2011 (8) dt.22-08-2013 6 / 6 submission of the State that Buniyadi Siksha Visarat is not equivalent to the B.T.C. does not appear to be correct. In such circumstances, the part of the order of the appellate authority, as contained in Annexure 1, declaring the appointment of the petitioners being illegal cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly quashed. Consequently, the order dated 13th of January, 2012, as contained in Annexure 11 to I.A. No1768 of 2013, also stands quashed. Further the order dated 28th of June, 2011, as contained in Annexure 9, so far it relates to the petitioner is quashed. Before I part with the order, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the order passed by the appellate authority with respect to the case of respondent no.12.
Decision
The writ application stands disposed of. PNM (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)