The State Of Bihar v. through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.478 of 2011 ====================================================== Nasrin Sahjadi, daughter of Abdul Rabban, Resident of village Jodanga, P.O.- Mahadeopur, P.S.- Pranpur, District- Katihar. .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar Versus through the Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Katihar. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar. 4. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Katihar. 5. The Block Development Officer, Block Pranpur, District- Katihar. 6. Smt. Sunita Gupta, Ex-Pramukh, village _ Post- Mahadeopur, P.S. + Block- Pranpur, District- Katihar. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 5 21-11-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard Mr. Jagdish Prasad for the petitioner, Mr. Dhirendra Kumar Jha for respondent No. 6 and A.C. to S.C. 16 for the State. Petitioner raises a grievance with respect to the communication dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure-8) issued under the signature of the respondent District Panchayat Raj Officer, Katihar (respondent No. 4) calling upon her to appear before him in connection with a grievance application filed by the respondent No. 6 questioning the selection and appointment of the writ petitioner as Prakhand Teacher (Urdu) in Pranpur Block in the district of Katihar. The petitioner was selected as Urdu Teacher by the Selection Committee in terms of the provisions of the Bihar State Patna High Court CWJC No.478 of 2011 (5) dt.21-11-2013 2 Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (for short “ the Rules”). A dispute had arisen with respect to her such selection which propelled the writ petitioner to file an appeal before the Tribunal/Appellate Authority constituted under Rule 18 thereof. The petitioner raised a grievance against her removal from service as also non-payment of the salary of the post held by her. The Tribunal noticed all the persons concerned with such selection/appointment of the petitioner as Prakhand Teacher. The Pramukh of the Block who heads the Selection Committee was also afforded an opportunity of hearing. The claim of aggrieved candidate that the petitioner had obtained appointment/employment based on a fake Fokania Certificate/mark sheet issued by the Bihar State Madarsa Board (for short “the Madarsa Board”) in which her date of birth was entered as 12.11.1987 was negated. Let it be recorded that the grievance against the petitioner by the unsuccessful candidate was that the petitioner had subsequently also passed matriculation examination conducted by Bihar School Examination Board (for short “ the Board”) in which her date of birth was recorded as 5.7.1986. The Tribunal by an order dated 28.8.2009 passed in Appeal Case No. 1573/2009 (Annexure-6) allowed the case of the petitioner and her appointment as Block Teacher in Urdu was Patna High Court CWJC No.478 of 2011 (5) dt.21-11-2013 3 upheld. It appears the order passed by the Tribunal did not satisfy the Respondent No. 6 although the aggrieved party in the present case was one Huma Bano who was unsuccessful in being appointed as Urdu Teacher. The Respondent No. 6 made an application before the Collector raising identical/similar issues with respect to discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner appearing in the Certificate issued by the Madarsa Board and the certificate issued by the Board. In the light of the said application filed by respondent No. 6, the District Panchayat Raj Offier, Katihar issued notice as contained in Annexure-8 which is impugned in the present application. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that under the relevant rule provision(s), the District Panchayat Raj Officer or for that matter the Collector of the district has not been assigned any role. The impugned notice has been issued by the District Panchayat Raj Officer who had absolutely no jurisdiction in the matter. The Tribunal/Appellate Authority after considering the grievance of the aggrieved person and the stand of the petitioner as well as the concerned official respondents recorded a finding that the appointment of the petitioner as Block Teacher (Urdu) on the basis of the educational certificate issued by the Madarsa Board cannot be faulted. Learned counsel has highlighted Patna High Court CWJC No.478 of 2011 (5) dt.21-11-2013 4 from the application filed by the Respondent No. 6 (Annexure-7) that the legality/sustainability of the order/finding of the Tribunal/Appellate Authority has been challenged by her in the application addressed to the Collector based on which the impugned notice has been issued by the respondent District Panchayat Raj Officer. Mr. Jha, learned counsel for Respondent No. 6 has submitted that respondent no. 6 was not impleaded as party to the proceeding lodged by the petitioner before the Appellate Authority/Tribunal and, therefore, she was not afforded any opportunity. He, however, pointed out that the petitioner has also claimed to have passed matriculation from the Board in which her date of birth has been recorded as 5.7.1986. Learned counsel for the State submits that there appears to be discrepancy in the date of birth of the petitioner appearing in two educational certificates. Mr. Prasad, in reply, states that the date of birth was incorrectly incorporated/stated as 5.7.1986 in the matriculation certificate issued by the Board for which appropriate application seeking correction was filed. Relevant records were produced before and taken note of by the Tribunal in the order dated 28.8.2009 (Annexure-6). Patna High Court CWJC No.478 of 2011 (5) dt.21-11-2013 5 On a consideration of the submissions made by the parties and after perusal of the materials on record, this much is evident that Respondent No. 6 raised an issue with regard to the correctness or otherwise of the order passed by the Tribunal/Appellate Authority before the District Magistrate whereafter the impugned notice (Annexure-8) was issued. Under the scheme of the Rule, the District Magistrate and for that matter the District Panchayat Raj Officer has been assigned no role. In the case of Block Teacher, the Appropriate Authority was the Deputy Development Commissioner before the establishment of the Tribunal in terms of Rule 18 thereof. If the respondent had no authority in the matter then how such notice can be issued and that too raising an issue which was the subject matter of consideration before the Tribunal. If any person was aggrieved by the said order, the best course available was to assail the said order in accordance with law. The impugned notice is, therefore, held to have been issued without authority of law. The said notice dated 29.11.2010 (Annexure-8) is, therefore, quashed and set aside. The application is allowed.
Decision
There shall be no order as to costs. Pankaj/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)