Patna High Court
Case Details
Patna High Court CWJC No.17614 of 2010 (4) dt.16-09-2013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17614 of 2010 ====================================================== Dharmnath Prasad S/O Lte Nagnarayan @ Nagnarayan Prasad R/O Vill. & P.O.- Bhagar, P.S.- Siswan, Distt.- Siwan, At Present Working As Panchayat Primary Teacher In Primary School, Bhagar Now Upgraded As Middle School, Under Block Siswan, Distt.- Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Department Of Human Resources, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bailey Road, Patna 2. The Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Siwan 3. The Distt. Superintendent Of Education, Siwan At Siwan 4. The Block Education Officer, Barharia, P.S.- Barharia, Distt.- Siwan 5. The Block Development Officer, P.S.- Barharia, Distt.- Siwan 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bhagar, Under Block Siswan, Distt.- Siwan 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayt Raj, Bhagar, Under Block Siswan, Distt.- Siwan 8. Raju Singh S/O Late Dinesh Singh R/O Vill.- Saraut, P.S.- Siswan, Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate, Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Satyendra Krishna Prasad, Advocate Miss. Divya Verma, AC to AAG -3. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 4 16-09-2013 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, State as also the respondent no. 8. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4th of September 2010 in Case No. 83 of 2010 (Annexure-8) passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan whereby the appointment of the petitioner, as a Panchayat Teacher was cancelled and directed for the appointment of respondent no. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that admittedly, petitioner was engaged as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by order dated 15th of June 2005, as contained in Annexure-3, for the contractual period of 11 months and on
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.17614 of 2010 (4) dt.16-09-2013 expiry of the aforesaid period, the appointment/engagement of the petitioner was renewed with effect from 10th of June 2006 by memo dated 30th of June 2010, as contained in Annexure -4 and on coming into force of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Condition Service) Rules 2006, the petitioner acquired statutory status of the Panchayat Teacher due to the operation of the aforesaid statutory rule with effect from 1st of July, 2006, the appointed date. It is further contended that admittedly, as a Panchayat Teacher, there was no omission or commission alleged on his part in discharge of his duty as a Teacher. However, after lapse of long period, on 11th of January 2010, the private respondents started agitating his grievance with respect to the engagement of the petitioner on 15.06.2005 as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as contained in Annexure -3. The said complaint was made in the Janta Darbar of the Chief Minister which in turn was sent to the aforesaid appellate authority. Learned counsel further submits that the appellate authority could not have gone into considering/adjudicating the irregularities with respect to Shiksha Mitra, if any, as pointed out by the private respondents, since the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority was not the competent authority to adjudicate the disputes, if any, with respect to the engagement of the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra at the material time. Admittedly, the private respondents did not take the recourse Patna High Court CWJC No.17614 of 2010 (4) dt.16-09-2013 of law with respect to his grievance in the matter of selection as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. Moreover, the said engagement was only for a fixed tenure of 11 months. Thereafter, on expiry of the said period, petitioner was re- engaged as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as per the memo dated 30th of June 2006, vide Annexure- 4. Admittedly, there was neither any dispute nor complaint against the last engagement of the petitioner, as a Shiksha Mitra. The petitioner relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this court reported in 2011 PLJR 297 in the case of Renu Kumari Pandey Vs. State of Bihar and Ors holding that the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to adjudicate with respect to the irregularities, if any, in the engagement of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The SLP No. 33303 of 2011 preferred against the above decision was dismissed by the Apex Court as per order dated 09.01.2012 and Civil Review No. 123 of 2012 in light of the order of the Apex Court was dismissed by this court vide order dated 17.10.2012.
Legal Reasoning
Besides, as held by this court in the aforesaid decision that the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority has no jurisdiction to entertain or to decide the dispute, if any, with respect to the engagement as Shiksha Mitra after coming into force of the aforesaid statutory rule, the impugned order is without jurisdiction In this view of the matter, the impugned order as contained in Annexure- 8passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan cannot be sustained in law. It is, accordingly, quashed. It goes without saying that the consequential order Patna High Court CWJC No.17614 of 2010 (4) dt.16-09-2013 dated 22nd of September 2010, vide Annexure- 9 also stands quashed. above. Accordingly, the writ application stands allowed as Jagdish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha, J)
Arguments
Learned counsel for the private respondents submit that since the petitioner was not selected, as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, however, as on today, he cannot claim for his appointment as a Panchayat Teacher, since admittedly, he was not working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as on 1st of July 2006. He further submits that although he had not made any complaint against the engagement of the petitioner as Shiksha Patna High Court CWJC No.17614 of 2010 (4) dt.16-09-2013 Mitra in the year 2006 but since the previous engagement of the petitioner in the year 2005 was illegal and as such, his appointment as a Shiksha Mitra in the year 2006 also becomes bad in law. It has also not denied that with respect to the irregularities in the engagement of Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005, the petitioner did not avail the statutory forum for redressal of his grievance available at the material time. Considering the submissions of the parties and upon perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that the primary dispute is with respect to the engagement of the petitioner as a Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005. There is no dispute with respect to the engagement of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2006 since both the engagements are distinct from each other which was limited for 11 months each.