Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11092 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sunil Kumar S/O Sri Gopal Sah R/O Vill.- Pirari, Post- Pipraridih, P.S.- Derni, Distt.- Saran Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Human Resources And Development Department Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Saran 4. The District Superintendent Of Education, Saran 5. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Sonepur, Saran 6. The Block Development Officer, Dariapur, Saran 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Dariapur, Saran 8. The Head Master, Vedvalia Primary School (Newly Establish) Piraridih, Dariapur, Saran 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Piraridih, Derni, Saran 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Piraridih, Derni, Saran 11. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Saran (Chapra) 12. The Bihar School Examination Board, Patna 13. The Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna 14. Urmila Kumari W/O Bharat Prasad Singh R/O Vill.- Pirari, Post- Piraridih, P.S.- Derni, Distt.- Saran 15. Sanjay Kumar Maurya S/O Gaya Prasad R/O Village And Post- Piraridih, P.S.- Derni, Distt.- Saran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Gyan Prakash & Mr. Shrawan kumar For the State : Mr. Bipin Kumar,A.C to S.C.24 For B.S.E.B. : Mr. Sunil Kumar Mandal. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 15-03-2013 After hearing the parties including private respondents and also perusing the counter affidavit and reply thereto, this Court had allowed this writ petition by judgment and order dated 17.9.2010. Respondent no. 14, who had not been selected for
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.11092 of 2010 (4) dt.15-03-2013 2 appointment as a Panchayat Teacher and who was then allowed to be selected by the District Appellate Tribunal by displacing the petitioner brought the petitioner to this Court in the said writ petition. This Court held that by not selecting respondent no.14,the Panchayat Level Selection Committee did not commit any wrong
Decision
nothing the fact that the writ petition was allowed and the order of the tribunal was set aside. It appears that consequence being that respondent no.14 could not, thus, be appointed as a teacher. She filed L.P.A. being L.P.A. No. 1872/2010, which without notice to the respondents on the very first hearing was disposed of directing to consider fresh evidence in the shape of Annexure 6 to the L.P.A. The order of L.P.A.bench dated 4.8.2011 is quoted hereunder: “Heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned counsel for the State. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 17.9.2010 passed by the leaned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.No. 11092 of 2010. In view of the fresh evidence by way of filing of Annexure 6, let it be considered by the learned Single Judge, who has passed the impugned order. The appeal is disposed off.” Patna High Court CWJC No.11092 of 2010 (4) dt.15-03-2013 3 This is how this matter has been placed before this bench again. I have perused Annexure 6 to the appeal, which is said to be fresh evidence. Meaning thereby that it was not available before the Writ Court. Annexure 10 to the writ petition and Annexure B to the counter affidavit of respondent no.14 in the writ proceedings are exactly the same documents, which is Annexure 6 to the L.P.A. This Court while disposing of the writ petition had considered the aforesaid documents wherein this Court noted that the Selection Committee granted opportunity to respondent no.14 to get necessary correction done but she failed to do so. This Court also noticed that it was for the first time, two years later, in the year 2008, that the corrections were made by the Bihar State Electricity Board and further that it could not be expected of the Selection Committee to wait for year for the correction to be made. They had to take a decision at the time of meeting of the Selection Committee. They took the decision and thereby committed no wrong. Thus seen, this Annexure 6 to L.P.A. was not only already on record brought by the petitioner and respondent no.14 herself had been duly considered by the meeting. That being so, respondent no.14 inadvertently or Patna High Court CWJC No.11092 of 2010 (4) dt.15-03-2013 4 otherwise misled the appellate Court into recording the fact that it was a fresh evidence that was brought in her favour at the appellate the stage and L.P.A. bench being misled passed the said order. However, as I am bound by the direction of L.P.A. bench I have to reconsider the matter. I would like to place correct perspective things once again. Three candidates were in contest of selection. They were petitioner, respondent no. 14 and respondent no. 15 to the writ petition. The petitioner had, in fact, applied as a Backward Candidate and has about 77 % marks, respondent no.15 was also a Backward Candidate, who had about 70% marks and respondent no.14 was a General Cadre Candidate had 44% marks but she had under gone two years basic teachers training course. While scrutinizing the credential it was found that the date of birth of respondent no.14, as given in the matriculation certificate and as noticed in the Teachers Training Certificate, were different. The matriculation certificate had been issued almost three decades back. Apparently respondent no. 14 pointed out that it was a mistake. The Selection Committee granted her time to get the certificate corrected because if there was dispute in regard to her date of birth and that was left unresolved, she could not be selected. It is not denied that she (respondent no. 14) could not get Patna High Court CWJC No.11092 of 2010 (4) dt.15-03-2013 5 the certificate corrected in time. The Selection Committee was not required to wait ad infinitum. It ,thus, in view of discretion in the age between the two certificates rejected her candidature and selected the petitioner. It is in this perspective that this Court on earlier occasion observed that the Selection Committee had discretion in the matter. Discretion itself implies different options available. Each option is legally permissible. Thus, selecting one of the options will not make the exercise of discretion illegally. Discretion implies a choice of selection. Thus, when the Selection Committee did give a chance to respondent no.4 to get the ambiguity removed she failed to get the same corrected in time. She missed the bus and lost the opportunity. I can only emphasize that it is a document, as produced at the time of counselling that is required to be looked into and not a document procured or corrected two years later to judge the validity of the counselling process. Thus, in my view, this upon reconsideration of the fact in view of Annexure 6 to L.P.A., I am of the same view that the order of the tribunal cannot be sustained as the discretion exercised by the Selection Committee cannot be said to be a wrong and/or illegal and/or arbitrary. There was no occasion for the tribunal to interfere in the matter. Thus, the order of the tribunal, which is in favour of Patna High Court CWJC No.11092 of 2010 (4) dt.15-03-2013 6 respondent no.14 cannot be sustained and is set aside. The order of the Selection Committee is restored. The writ petition is once again allowed. It is stated that the writ petitioner had been re-instated and is continuing as such. (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J) singh/-