Sanjay Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar

the parties. He is permitted to do so at his own risk. The petitioner was an applicant for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher (for short ‘P.T.’) in Dosut Panchayat in the district of Nawada. A merit list of the applicants/candidates Patna High Court CWJC No.8825 of 2011 (3) dt.17-12-2013 2 was prepared.As per writ petition, the petitioner figured in the said list. Thereafter counselling was done and a final select list was prepared in which the name of the petitioner did not figure. Appointments were thereafter made from the said select list. Aggrieved by such selection of the selected/appointed candidates, the petitioner claims to have filed an application before the respondent- Block Development Officer. The Block Development Officer by order dated 6.11.2007 cancelled all the appointments of P.Ts made in the said Gram Panchayat. The selected/ appointed candidates aggrieved by such order of cancellation of their appointments filed several writ petitions in this Court being C.W.J.C.No. 204 of 2008 (Sudha Kumari) and analogues cases. By a common order dated 6.3.2009 (Annexure 4) those writ petitions were allowed. This Court considering the fact that no opportunity of hearing was given to the selected/ appointed candidates cancellation selection/appointment set aside the order contained in memo no.1255 dated 6.11.2007. In other words, the order cancelling appointment of the selected candidates was interfered with and set aside on the ground that in doing so the concerned respondents had acted in breach of the rules of natural justice. Having done so, this Court further observed that if the competent authority under Patna High Court CWJC No.8825 of 2011 (3) dt.17-12-2013 3 the relevant rule was desirous to conduct any enquiry the same may be made observing the rule of natural justice. The selected candidates were, however, directed to continue on the post(s) until a fresh order was passed by the competent authority in the light of the order. The respondents allegedly did not take any action pursuant to the said order of this Court. In other words, the selected candidates were allowed to continue on their respective posts of P.Ts. It is the case of the writ petitioner that another aggrieved applicant/candidate filed an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the Rules in the light of the observation made by this Court in C.W.J.C.No. 13102/2007. The Tribunal by order dated 7.8.2010 (Annexure 5) quashed the appointment of Mokhtar Alam,Arif Iqbal, Faiyaz Alam and Sudha Kumari. The selection and appointment of others was, however, held valid. The petitioner had also filed an appeal vide Case no. 310/2010 which was thereafter considered by the Tribunal and the same was rejected by order dated 20.8.2010. The said order has been impugned in the present writ petition. Heard the parties. Learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of the Court to the impugned order to submit that consideration his case on merit has been denied by the Tribunal Patna High Court CWJC No.8825 of 2011 (3) dt.17-12-2013 4 principally on the ground that a writ petition was pending before this Court in which an interim order was passed. Referring to the order dated 3.2.1990 passed in C.W.J.C.No. 204/2008 and analogous writ petitions (Annexure 4) it has been submitted that the said writ petitions had already been allowed by this Court on

6.3.2009. There was thus no writ petition pending in this Court in which any interim order was passed. It has thus been submitted that the Tribunal has erroneously rejected the appeal preferred by the petitioner on the said ground. Learned counsel for the State, per contra, submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner was fit to be rejected on the ground of delay and latches. Admittedly the petitioner after undergoing process of selection was not selected. The grievance application filed by him was allowed by the Block Development Officer in the year 2007. The petitioner thereafter did not raise any grievance with regard to continuance of the selected candidates on their respective posts, inasmuch as no writ petition was filed by him before this Court. Referring to the relevant provision of the Rules it has been argued that any person aggrieved by his/ her non selection is required to file application/appeal within the time prescribed under the Rule. The petitioner, therefore, acquiesced in the selection/appointment of Patna High Court CWJC No.8825 of 2011 (3) dt.17-12-2013 5 the selected candidate(s). It has also been urged that the petitioner having filed an objection before the Block Development Officer, which was allowed ,could not have filed any such appeal before the Tribunal. On perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal it appears that the consideration of the case of the petitioner on merit was denied on the ground that a writ petition was pending before this Court in which interim order was passed. The Tribunal has, however, observed that the appeal would be barred by limitation. The relevant discussion in order to take the said view has, however, not been made in the impugned order. This Court would therefore consider the said order passed mainly on the ground that an interim order passed in writ petition by this Court prohibited the Tribunal. The case was thus not considered on merit. It is seen that no such writ petition was pending before this Court in which any interim order was passed. The writ petitions filed by the selected candidate(s) were disposed of on 6.3.2009 (Annexure 4).The said finding of the Tribunal is, therefore, apparently erroneous. On this score itself this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal dated 20.8.2010 passed in Case no. 310/2010 (Annexure 1). Accordingly, the said order is quashed and set aside. Patna High Court CWJC No.8825 of 2011 (3) dt.17-12-2013 6 The Tribunal shall now consider the case of the petitioner on its own merit and dispose of the same in accordance with law but after hearing the parties. Let it be recorded that this Court has not gone into the other submissions and the counter submissions made by the parties. Both the parties would be at liberty to raise all issues/points before the Tribunal for its consideration. The petitioner shall appear before the Tribunal along with a copy of this order within four weeks enabling the Tribunal to dispose of the case. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) singh/-