Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CWJC No.19418 of 2011 (6) dt.04-09-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19418 of 2011 ====================================================== Shyamal Kuamr Singh Son Of Shri Kameshwar Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Kolha Banwari, P.S. + Distt.-Kishanganj. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources And Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Education Officer, Kishanganj. 5. The Member, District Teachers Employnment Appellate Tribunal, Kishanganj. 6. The Mukhiya Mothihara Taluka Panchayat, Kishanganj, Distt.- Kishanganj. 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Motihara Taluka Panchayat, Kishanganj, Distt.- Kishanganj. 8. Md. Shoyab Alam S/O Md. Zakatullah Vill.-Maida, P.O.-Singhia Hat, Distt.-Kishanganj. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16701 of 2010 ====================================================== Shyamal Kumar Singh S/O Shri Kameshwar Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Kolha Banwari, P.S.- Kishanganj, Distt.- Kishanganj Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. The District Superintendent Of Education, Kishanganj 5. The Member District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Kishanganj 6. The Block Development Officer, Kishanganj 7. The Mukhiya, Motihara Taluka Panchayat Kishanganj 8. The Panchayat Secretary Motihara Taluka Panchayat, Block And Distt.- Kishanganj 9. Md. Shoyab Alam S/O Md. Zakatullah Vill.- Maida, P.O.- Singhia Hat, Distt.- Kishanganj Kishanganj, Distt.-
Legal Reasoning
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.19418 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate Patna High Court CWJC No.19418 of 2011 (6) dt.04-09-2013 For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajendra Kr. Jha G.P-18 (In CWJC No.16701 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. (S.C-4) ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 6 04-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as also the Private Respondents. Petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 2nd of August 2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Kishanganj in Appeal No. 287 of 2009 whereby the appointment of the petitioners as Panchayat Teacher was held illegal and accordingly, their appointments have been cancelled. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that appointment of the petitioners as Panchayat Teacher is cancelled purely on the ground that before coming into force of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rule, 2006 with effect from 01.07.2006, petitioners who were engaged as Shiksha Mitra on contract for 11 months in the year 2003 and later on, their engagement was renewed after expiry of the tenure period. It is further submitted that on coming into force of the above rule as on 01.07.2006, petitioners on account of the legal fiction became the Panchayat Teacher under the aforesaid rule and as such, any irregularity in the engagement of Shiksha Mitra cannot become a subject matter of consideration by the District Teachers Patna High Court CWJC No.19418 of 2011 (6) dt.04-09-2013 Employment Appellate Authority who acquires the jurisdiction under Rule 18 of the aforesaid rules after its amendment on 25th of August 2008. In sum and substance, the submission is that respondent – appellate authority has no jurisdiction or authority in law to consider the irregularities with respect to the engagement of the Shiksha Mitra prior to coming into force the aforesaid statutory rule. Reliance is placed on a decision of this court in the case of Renu Kumari Pandey and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2011 (4) PLJR 297 (DB) as also the decision in the case of Saroj Kumar and Others. Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2013 (2) PLJR 897. It is further submitted that against the decision of the Division Bench, the matter was placed before the Apex Court vide SLP No. 3303 of 2011 which was not interfered, however, with a liberty to the petitioner of the above SLP to approach the High Court for review of the order which may be considered in accordance with law. The review application was filed which was rejected vide order dated 17th of October 2012 passed in Civil Review No. 123 of 2012. Learned counsels for the State submits that before passing of the order by the Apex Court in the aforesaid special Leave petition, the Division Bench of this court in L.P.A. No. 1596 of 2011 vide order dated 28th of 2011 referred the matter for consideration by Full Bench on the issue as to whether Shiksha Mitra removed prior to coming into force of the Rule Patna High Court CWJC No.19418 of 2011 (6) dt.04-09-2013 2006 can be directed to be appointed as Shiksha Mitra or not. Considering the submission of the parties, it appears that in the case reported in 2011(4) PLJR page 297 (DB) as also the Single Bench Judgement of this court in the case of Saroj Kumar and Others Vs. State of Bihar and Others reported in 2013 (2) PLJR Page 897 the issue as to whether irregularities, if any, committed in engaging the Shiksha Mitra would be a subject matter of consideration by the appellate authority constituted under Rule 18 of the aforesaid rule was considered. This court held that the appellate authority cannot exercise his jurisdiction with respect to the irregularities, if any, in the enrollment of the persons who were earlier engaged as Shiksha Mitra and the matter cannot be reopened after they acquired status of Panchayat Teacher and as such, any omission or commission on the part of these petitioners can be subject matter of consideration by the appellate authority under Rule 18 of the aforesaid rules. In view of the reasons and discussions made above, I am of the opinion that the impugned orders dated 2nd of August 2010 cannot be sustained in law. It is accordingly, quashed. The competent authority shall issue appropriate order in light of the present order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months on receipt/production of certified copy of the present order for reinstatement. With respect to emoluments for the period, the petitioner remained out of Patna High Court CWJC No.19418 of 2011 (6) dt.04-09-2013 service on account of their termination, appropriate order be also passed. Both the above two writ applications stand allowed. Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)