Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8036 of 2010 ====================================================== 1. Sheodani Prasad Singh S/O Shri Krishnadeo Prasad Singh R/O Vill Mahisaur, P.O.Mahisaur, P.S.Jandaha, Distt-Vaishali 2. Kamlesh Sah S/O Shri Mahavir Sah R/O Vill Saidpur, P.O.Rupauli, P.S.Ujiyarpur, Distt-Samastipur 3. Kumari Renu Sinha W/O Pramod Kumar R/O Vill Barhbatta, P.S.Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 4. Aamita Kumari P.S.Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur D/O Rajendra Singh R/O Vill Barhbatta, Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Member , District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority Samastipur 3. The Collector Samastipur 4. The District Superintendent Of Education Samastipur 5. The Prakhand Vikas Padadhikari, Sarai Ranjan Prakhand Distt- Samastipur, At And P.O.Sarai Ranjan 6. The Mukhiya , Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbatta, P.S.Musrigharari, Distt- Samastipur 7. The Panchayat Sevak, Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbatta 8. Satyajyoti Kumar S/O Satish Chand Rai Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 9. Sarita Kumari D/O Kameshwar Pathak Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 10. Mukesh Kumar S/O Akru Das Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 11. Nisha Kumari D/O Bhola Prasad Rai Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 12. Asmat Khatoon D/O Sakhawat Hussain Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 13. Rinku Kumari D/O Kapildeo Sharma Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 14. Sheela Kumari D/O Binni Kant Singh Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 15. Begum Kumari D/O Ram Dayal Sah Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 16. Kumari Kiran D/O Raj Nath Chaudhary Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur 17. Ashwini Kumar Rai S/O Aditya Kumar Teacher , C/O Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barhbartta, P.S. Musrigharari, Distt-Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20864 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Mukesh Kumar Sri Hakaru Das Salempur, P.O. Rupauli, P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur 2. Kumari Kiran D/O Raj Narayan Chaudhari Barbatta, P.O. Rupauli, P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 2 3. Rinku Kumari D/O Late Kapildeo Sharma Barbatta, P.O. Rupauli, P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur 4. Begam Kumari D/O Sri Ramdeyal Sah Rupauli, , P.O. Rupauli, P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur 5. Asmat Khatoon D/O Md. Sakhawant Husain Shihma , P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur 6. Sheela Kumari Sri Vishnu Kant Singh Barbatta,P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur 7. Sarita Kumari D/O Sri Kameshwar Pathak Barbatta, P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Education Department Govt. Of Bihar, 2. The Director Primary Education Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Member District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Samastipur, Distt. Samastipur 4. The District Magistrate, Samstipur District Samastipur 5. The Deputy Devlopment Commissioner Samastipur,District Samastipur 6. The Department Of Cabinet Vigilance, Bihar, Patna 7. The Principal Secretary Of The Govt. Vigilance, Department Of Bihar Patna 8. Thejoint Secretary Of The Govt. Vigilance Department, Bihar, Patna 9. The Deputy Superintendent Of Police Vigilance Investigation, Bureau, Patna 10. The District Education Officer, Samastipur ,Distt. Samatipur 11. The District Programme Officer, ( Establishment) Samastipur, Distt. Samastipur 12. The Block Development Officer, Sarairanjan, Distt. Samastipur 13. The Block Education Officer, Sarairanjan, Distt. Samastipur 14. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Barbatta Block Sarairanjan ,Distt. Samastipur 15. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Barbatta Block Sarairranjan Distt. Samastipur 16. Shivdani Pd. Singh S/O Sri Krishna Deo Prasad Singh Mahisor, P.S. Jandaha, Distt. Vaishali 17. Kamalesh Sah Mahabiar Sah Saidpur, P.S. Ujiyarpur, Distt. Samastipur 18. Mamata Kumari D/O Sri Ras Bihari Singh Barbatta P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur 19. Kumari Renu Sinha W/O Sri Pramod Kumar Rakesh Barbatta, P.S. Musari Gharari, Distt. Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.8036 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shrinandan Prasad Singh Mr. Ashok Kumar 1 Mr. Mritunjay Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma, Sr. Advocate (In CWJC No.20864 of 2012) Mr. G.A.-2 Mr. Kedar Singh Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 3 For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Mritunjay Kumar Mr. Nawal Kishor Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.Raza Ahmad Aag9 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 10 16-12-2013 In substance, the appointments made by the Selection Committee on the post(s) of Panchayat Teachers (for short “ PTs”) of the Barbatta Gram Panchayat in the district of Samastipur is the subject matter of the writ petitions. They have thus been clubbed together and heard with the consent of the parties. Re. C.W.J.C. No. 8036 of 2010 The petitioners have challenged the legality of the order dated 18.12.2009 contained in Annexure-13 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority (for short “the Tribunal”) whereby the appointment of the respondent nos. 8 to 16 have been held valid and the appointment of the petitioner(s) on the post of PTs in the said Gram Panchayat have been held invalid/illegal. In Gram Panchayat Raj Barbatta, 12 vacancies of PTs fell for appointment. The same was advertised. Preference was
Legal Reasoning
first given to the trained applicants/candidates. Accordingly, three (03) candidates were appointed. The present application raises no grievance in respect thereof. 09 posts of PTs left to be appointed from untrained candidate(s)/applicant(s). As per direction of the Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 4 District Magistrate dated 7.2.2007, the left out vacancies were to be filled up on or before 28.2.2007. The same was given a wide publication on 9.2.2007 wherein two dates for counseling of the candidates were fixed i.e. 12.2.2007 and 19.2.2007. On 12.2.2007, counseling was made of the applicants/candidates who responded to the notice. Respondent nos. 13, 14 and 16 appeared thereat and their counseling was made. These respondents subsequently filed their consent on 15.2.2007. Respondent nos. 9, 10 and 17 who had also appeared on 12.2.2007 subsequently also submitted their consent on 16.2.2007. They were accordingly issued appointment letters. One of the selected candidates in unreserved female category who was selected in the first counseling is not a respondent in the present case. The second counseling scheduled for 19.2.2007 was deferred and the same was held on 24.2.2007. The two vacancies of PTs under EBC(F) category which could not be filled up in the first counseling were held on 24.2.2007 and they were also selected. The selected candidates under EBC(F) category are Respondent nos. 12 and 15. On 25.2.2007, final merit list was published. On being appointed, the remaining selected candidates joined the posts. The petitioners claimed to have appeared for counseling on 24.2.2007. They could not be selected since adequate number of candidates who appeared in the category Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 5 to which the petitioners belong had already appeared on 12.2.2007 and were selected and issued appointment letters. The petitioners claimed to have raised a grievance before the Collector alleging therein that they were arbitrarily left out from consideration against their respective categories although they had higher marks in their respective categories than the selected candidates. The respondent Collector directed the District Superintendent of Education to make an enquiry. The respondent District Superintendent of Education is said to have made enquiry and submitted a report on 4.4.2007 (Annexure-1) showing three specific illegalities committed in course of the selection of the PTs in the said Gram Panchayat. On such recommendation of the District Superintendent of Education, the Collector forwarded the same(Annexure-2) to the respondent Block Development Officer for taking needful action. It is the petitioners’ case that another enquiry by the Additional Collector was also made who submitted the report on 13.9.2008 (Annexure-5). The Block Development Officer by a communication dated 28.9.2007 (Annexure-3) cancelled the appointment of the selected candidates including the Respondent nos. 8 to 16 and directed to undertake fresh process of selection. Similar order is said to have been again passed by the Block Development Officer as contained in Annexure-4. On Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 6 4.10.2007, the Respondent Mukhiya is said to have issued a letter (Annexure-7) cancelling the appointment of Respondent nos. 8 to 16. The petitioners, therefore, claim to have been appointed on 5.11.2007. Sample copies of their appointment letters have been enclosed as Annexure-8 and 8/A. They were paid salary for few months. Subsequently, the appointment of the petitioners was also cancelled on 11.10.2008 in the light of direction received from the Office of the Collector vide order contained in Annexure-10. The Block Development Officer thereafter made enquiry in respect of the large scale illegalities/irregularities committed in different Gram Panchayats under Sarairanjan Block in the matter of selection and appointment of PTs and submitted a report to the District Magistrate. The private respondents were in the meantime allowed to function as PTs. The respondents subsequently by order dated 30.11.2008 restrained the respondents from functioning as PTs in the light of diverse reports submitted by the authorities under the direction of the District Magistrate. In this background, both the private respondents and the petitioners approached the Hon’ble Chief Minister in Janta Darbar and filed applications. Those applications were directed to be placed before the Tribunal for resolution thereof. Accordingly, Case No. 356 of 2009 filed by the private respondents and 382 of 2009 filed by the Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 7 writ petitioners were registered and heard by the Tribunal. The
Decision
Tribunal by an order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure-13) disposed of the Appeal Case no. 356 of 2009 and in the light of the said order Appeal No. 382 of 2009 was also disposed of. The Tribunal, on a consideration of the submissions of the parties, found that prior to the constitution of the Tribunal, the Block Development Officer was the appropriate/competent authority to consider such grievance relating to the selection/appointment of PTs. The said authority, on enquiry, found no illegality in the appointment of the respondents herein as PTs in Barbatta Gram Panchayat. There was no occasion for any other authority to make any enquiry. The appointment of the writ petitioners was not made by the competent authority in terms of Rule 9(vii) of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (for short "the Rules"). It was also found that out of 9 persons selected by the Selection Committee, two of the selected candidates approached this Court against their removal from service on the ground that they had pursued vocational course which was also required to be considered as educational eligibility. This Court upheld their contention and the order of their termination was set aside. The Tribunal also noticed that a vigilance enquiry was ordered in the matter relating to appointments of PTs under Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 8 Sarairanjan block and his order would abide by the ultimate result of the said criminal proceeding. Aggrieved thereby, the present writ petition has been filed. Re. C.W.J.C. No. 20864 of 2012 Four of the private respondents of C.W.J.C. No. 8036 of 2010 have filed the present writ petition for quashing the order contained in letter no. 2950 dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure-17) issued by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Samastipur (earlier designated as District Superintendent of Education) whereby the Block Education Officer, Sarairanjan was directed to stop payment of salary to petitioners who were working as Panchayat Teacher on being selected and appointed by the Selection Committee of the Barbatta Gram Panchayat. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners in both the writ petitions, Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma for the private respondent in C.W.J.C. No. 8036 of 2010 and learned counsel for the State. The parties have exchanged their pleadings. Sri Shrinandan Singh learned counsel for the petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 8036 of 2010 submitted that the petitioners possess higher percentage of marks than the selected candidates in their respective categories. The counseling of the applicants/candidates as per notice and publication thereof were to Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 9 be held on two dates i.e. 12.2.2007 and 19.2.2007. For one reason or the other, the counseling slated for 19.2.2007 was deferred to 24.2.2007. The writ petitioners appeared for counseling on 24.2.2007. Without waiting for the counseling of 24.2.2007, the respondents on the basis of counseling held on 12.2.2007 prepared a select list and appointed the respondents. In all fairness, the respondents should have waited for the counseling to be held on second date i.e. 19.2.2007 (deferred to 24.2.2007). On a grievance raised in this regard, the Block Development Officer under the direction of the District Magistrate found held enquiry and illegalities in such selection and appointment of the respondents and therefore, directed for their removal. Under the orders of the Block Development Officer, they were appointed which was subsequently again cancelled and the respondents were allowed to continue. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Tribunal. It has next been submitted that selection made by other Gram Panchayats under Sarai Ranjan Block fell for consideration before this Court in which this Court interfered and quashed the appointments made to the post of PTs after setting aside the order passed by the Appellate Authority/Tribunal. The present application, therefore, also merits to be allowed. It has next been submitted that the Tribunal preponed the date of hearing of the Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 10 case from 30.12.2009 to 18.12.2009 and thereafter passed the order depriving them of an opportunity of hearing. The order passed by the Tribunal is also bad in law on that count. Learned counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 20864 of 2012 has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Respondent District Programme Officer (Establishment) (Annexure-17) directing stoppage of the salary of the petitioners is bad in law since under the relevant provisions of the Rules, the District Programme Officer has no role to play. Mr. Rajiv Kumar Verma learned counsel for the private respondents, per contra, supported the impugned order. He has contended that after selecting the trained candidates who have priority in such selection, the respondents initiated steps for appointment of untrained candidates in the light of direction of the District Magistrate dated 7.2.2007 (Annexure-C/1 to the counter affidavit) which was duly published in the newspaper. The private respondents herein appeared for the counseling as per the notice and they were found suitable and after verification of their papers and submissions of consent papers they were issued appointment letters. The posts under EBC(F) category remained unfilled as no candidate/applicant belonging to the said category had appeared. Consequently, on the second notified date of counseling, the Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 11 applicants of the said category appeared and after verification of their documents, two (02) of them (respondent nos. 12 and 15) were only selected. A merit/select list of those candidates was also prepared and published (Annexure-C/25 of the supplementary counter affidavit). Till this date, no grievance was raised by the petitioners before any authority. All the nine (09) posts of untrained PTs were filled up. The respondent D.S.E. without any complaint or reference made to it by a communication dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure-1) found few defects or illegalities in the selection process undergone in the present Gram Panchayat whereon the respondent District Magistrate directed the Block Development Officer to enquire into those aspects/illegalities. The respondent Block Development Officer held an enquiry into those aspects/illegalities and found no fault in the selection process. The respondent Block Development Officer in his order dated 18.5.2007 (Annexure-C/6 to the counter affidavit) negated all the three issues raised by the D.S.E. in his letter dated 4.4.2007 (Annexure-1). The said order of the Block Development Officer has purposely not been disclosed and brought on record by the petitioners. In the meantime, the writ petitioners were illegally appointed by a Committee of officers in gross violation of the provisions of the Rules. When the same was brought to the notice Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 12 of the authority, the appointment of the writ petitioners was cancelled after notice and the respondents were allowed to function as PTs. Again on 30.11.2008, in the light of pending applications before the authorities, they (private respondents) were restrained from functioning. Both the petitioners as well as the respondents aggrieved by their removal and restrainment from functioning as PTs approached the Janta Darbar of the Hon’ble Chief Minister which was directed to be examined by the Tribunal constituted under the Rules and accordingly both the matters were registered and heard together by the Tribunal. The Tribunal on a consideration of the submissions and after perusal of the materials placed on record, in fact, concurred with the view of the Block Development Officer that there was no illegality in appointment of the respondents. Referring to the second report of the Block Development Officer (Annexure-12) on which much reliance has been placed by the petitioners, it has been urged that as per the direction of the District Magistrate, the illegalities committed in the appointment of PTs in different Gram Panchayats under Sarairanjan Block other than Barbatta Gram Panchayat was directed to be enquired into since enquiry into the allegations pertaining to Barbatta Gram Panchayat was already made by the Block Development Officer. The Block Development Officer, Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 13 therefore, erred in again enquiring into these allegations. Adverting to the next submission of the petitioner, it has been submitted that both the appeals were heard together by the Tribunal. Parties were afforded opportunities to make their submissions. The matter was placed for consideration on 8.12.2009 when the Tribunal fixed 30.12.2009 as the next date of hearing. Considering the fact that the lawyers had to appear in the examination for selection in superior judicial service scheduled on 30.12.2009, the same was later preponed to 18.12.2009. In the facts and circumstances of the case, such preponement did not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. On a consideration of the rival submissions of the parties, it appears the main challenge to the appointment of the respondent is that the petitioners had higher percentage of marks and still they have been kept out of job. Secondly, it has been submitted that the petitioners were not afforded adequate opportunity to place their case and the preponement of the hearing of the matter has prejudiced their case. Related question is whether the respondents were justified in selecting the respondents after the first date of counseling. It is an admitted position that those who had applied for the post but did not choose to appear in the counselling were Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 14 not entitled to be selected. The respondent authorities published dates for counseling. The private respondents herein appeared in the counseling held on 12.2.2007. According to them, two seats under reserved category remained unfilled and as such, the second counseling was held on 24.2.2007 when the candidates belonging to the said category had appeared and considering the suitability of those candidates, they were also selected. It further appears that the petitioners immediately thereafter did not raise any grievance against such selection of the private respondents herein. The respondent D.S.E. vide Annexure-1 subsequently found/noticed few specific illegalities in the selection of the respondents. Those illegalities were pointed out to the District Magistrate whereafter an enquiry was directed to be made by the Block Development Officer who was the competent authority under the Rules. The private respondents have brought on record the said order dated 18.5.2007/17.5.2007 (Annexure-C/6). It appears therefrom that a detailed enquiry was made on all the three aspects of the allegations and no illegality in the selection of the respondent was found. Till this stage, no grievance was raised by the petitioners before the competent/appropriate authority i.e. Block Development Officer. The writ petitioners, in the meanwhile, were appointed by a Committee headed by Block Development Officer Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 15 which was subsequently cancelled after notice. The said appointment of the writ petitioners were rightly cancelled as under the relevant Rule, such appointment is to be made by the Selection Committee as per Rule. No further clarification on this issue is required as the writ petitioners have not raised any such grievance. When the appointments of the petitioners were cancelled after notice, they raised an issue before Hon’ble the Chief Minister. In the light of subsequent report submitted by the Block Development Officer, the private respondents were also restrained from functioning as PTs. That gave an occasion to them to make similar application. Both the matters were referred to the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no substance in the allegation of the petitioners. The findings of the Tribunal in paragraphs 15 and 16 thereof uphold the findings of the Block Development Officer as contained in Annexure-C/6. In exercise of writ jurisdiction, this Court is required to consider whether the order suffers from any patent illegality or not. The Tribunal is the creation of a statutory order. There is no provision for appeal thereagainst. Adjudication of the dispute/grievance made by the Tribunal is, therefore, final. The Writ Court in exercise of its plenary jurisdiction can not sit as an Appellate Court/Forum to examine all questions of law and fact. Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 16 The jurisdiction of this Court would only confine to the decision making process. This Court would, however, interfere with such order if it is shown that the findings are perverse. The view taken by this Court is supported by the ratio laid down by this Court in Priyanka Kumari versus The State of Bihar [2012 (4) P.L.J.R. 482]. Prior to the constitution of the Tribunal in accord with amended provisions of Rule 18 of the Rules on 25.8.2008, the Block Development Officer was the competent authority to consider and resolve such disputes. No other authority under the Rule has been assigned the said role/jurisdiction. The private respondents have brought on record an order passed by the Block Development Officer respecting the Gram Panchayat in question. A detailed enquiry appears to have been made relating to the allegations pertaining to the said Gram Panchayat which was/were negated by the Block Development Officer after enquiry. The subsequent report of the Block Development Officer would only hold valid in respect of other Gram Panchayats within Sarairanjan Block. The order of the District Magistrate relying whereon the subsequent report was submitted by the Block Development Officer clearly states that the Block Development Officer was required to make enquiries in respect of selections made in those Gram Panchayats under Sarairanjan Block where such enquiry Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 17 was not earlier made. There is nothing on record except the subsequent report of the Block Development Officer that the petitioners had appeared on the first date of counseling or the second date of counseling. Even if they obtained higher percentage of marks, they were required to present themselves for counseling and verification of documents/certificates. The parties appeared to be in agreement that appearance for counseling was necessary for being considered and appointed. This Court finds that the Tribunal having perused the materials on record came to the same conclusion as was arrived at by the respondent Block Development Officer in the order annexed at Annexure-C/6. Another challenge to the impugned order is on the ground that the Tribunal preponed the date of order from 30.12.2009 to 18.12.2009. Such preponement has caused prejudice to the petitioners. Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, has urged that both the matters were being heard together. On previous dates, the parties were heard by the Tribunal. The case was fixed for orders. Since one of the counsels of the parties had to appear in the examination, the date of order on his request was preponed to 18.12.2009. No real prejudice, if any, caused to the petitioner has been shown to this Court. The said contention of the petitioner, therefore, merits to be rejected. Patna High Court CWJC No.8036 of 2010 (10) dt.16-12-2013 18 In the light of discussions made hereinabove, this Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order dated 18.12.2009 passed by the Tribunal as contained in Annexure-13. In C.W.J.C. No. 20864 of 2012, the petitioners have challenged the order dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure-17 to C.W.J.C. No. 20864 of 2012) issued by the respondent District Programme Officer (Establishment) on the ground that under the relevant Rules, the District Programme Officer (Establishment) has no jurisdiction to pass the said order. On perusal of the Rules, it appears that prior to constitution of the Tribunal, the Block Development Officer was empowered to consider any such grievance and pass order. The order dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure- 17), therefore, is without jurisdiction having been passed by an authority who is not assigned any role under the Rules governing the case. In the result, C.W.J.C. No. 8036 of 2010 is dismissed and C.W.J.C. No. 20864 of 2012 is allowed. The order dated 9.5.2012 (Annexure-17 to C.W.J.C. No. 20864 of 2012) is quashed and set aside. There shall be no order as to costs. Pankaj/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)