Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 15204 of 2009 ====================================================== Pushpa Kumari W/O Mithilesh Kumar Vill- Husepur, P.O. Paigambarpur, P.S. Shakara, Distt. Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate Muzaffarpur 3. The District Appellate Teacher Employment Tribunal Muzaffarpur 4. The District Superintendent Of Education Muzaffarpur 5. The Block Development Officer Sakara, Muzaffarpur 6. Gram Panchayat-Paigambarpur Niyojan Samiti Through Its Secretary P.S.+Block- Sakara, P.O. Paigambarpur, Distt. Muzaffarpur 7. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat At Paigambarpur, P.O. Paigambarpur, P.S. Sakara, Distt. Muzaffarpur 8. Laxman Paswan, Panchayat Secretary C/O Block Development Office, Sakara, P.O. Sakara, Distt. Muzaffarpur 9. Mukesh Kumar S/O Sri Bindeshwar Singh Vill- Husepur, P.O. Paigambarpur, P.S. Sakara, Distt. Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16444 of 2009 ====================================================== Mukesh Kumar S/O Bindeshwar Singh Vill- Husepur, P.S. Sakra, Distt. Muzaffarpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Its Director Human Resources Deptt., Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Member District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority Muzaffarpur 3. The Director, Primary Education Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 4. The District Magistrate Muzaffarpur 5. The District Superintendent Of Education Muzaffarpur 6. The Block Development Officer Sakra Block, Distt. Muzaffarpur 7. Block Education Extension Officer Sakra Block, Distt. Muzaffarpur 8. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Paigambarpur Block Sakra, Distt. Muzaffarpur 9. The Mukhia Gram Panchayat Raj Paigambarpur, Block Sakra, Distt. Muzaffarpur 10. Smt. Pushpa Kumari W/O Mithilesh Kumar Vill- Husepur, P.S. Sakara, P.O. Paigambarpur, Distt. Muzaffarpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.15204 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Sc17) (In CWJC No.16444 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ajay Kumar Thakur, Advocate Mr. Md.Imteyaz Ahmad
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Md.Imteyaz Ahmad For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp13) Mr. Rakesh Kumar Singh Mr. Nawal Kishore Singh ====================================================== Patna High Court CWJC No.15204 of 2009 (6) dt.29-01-2013 2/5 CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER *************** 06. 29.01.2013 Both the matters have been heard together, because order under challenge in both the Writ Applications is same or identical. In one case, Pushpa Kumari is the petitioner, in which Mukesh Kumar is Respondent No. 9, whereas in the other Writ Application, in which Mukesh Kumar is the petitioner, Pushpa Kumari is the Private-respondent No. 10. Both these persons have been fighting to continue on the post of Panchayat Teacher, though initially the origin of the dispute relates to the time, when some kind of selection was made for engagement as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The Court has gone through the detailed order of the Tribunal. There is detailed consideration as to whether these two persons should have figured in the merit list, which was prepared by the Panchayat as well as the manner in which such merit list was prepared for appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Even if the Court ignores those aspect of the matter and the finding regarding the manner of such engagement, two things are of significance, which is that neither Pushpa Kumari nor Mukesh Kumar were eligible for consideration for Patna High Court CWJC No.15204 of 2009 (6) dt.29-01-2013 3/5 engagement, even as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Therefore, the Tribunal is correct in reaching a conclusion with regard to their disengagement or not having a right to continue by virtue of a deeming fiction created in the 2006 Employment Rules w.e.f. 01.07.2006. So far as Pushpa Kumari is concerned, there is clear finding, which is not being denied that she was an elected representative under the Panchayat and was holder of an elected post. If that be so, there is serious reservation whether she should have offered herself for consideration as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra at all in the very first place. Why this aspect was ignored is not very difficult to guess, because the ward in question, which Pushpa Kumari represented, fell in the Panchayat and obviously she will have some influence to play in such selection, even if the facts stated by the counsel of Mukesh Kumar about her father-in-law, being part of the selection process is ignored. The matter, therefore, with regard to Pushpa Kumari has to rest and the appointment in question is not required to be revived by interfering with the order of the Tribunal. Patna High Court CWJC No.15204 of 2009 (6) dt.29-01-2013 4/5 Coming to the case of Mukesh Kumar, the finding is that he was an Insurance Agent, working with Life Insurance Corporation of India, this fact is also not disputed. But learned counsel representing Mukesh Kumar submits that the post or the work of an LIC agent is not a post of holder of office of profit and not a full time engagement. It is dependant on the business he generates. But such submission made even before the Tribunal has not cut any ice, because the Tribunal has gone into the details of an obligation of an agent viz a viz his role and duty as such by having a look at the provisions contained in sections 24 and 26 of the Insurance Act. This Court is not required to expand that finding by delving further as to what the two sections or the role of an LIC agent is all about. If the finding being what they are correct which is not in dispute in this Writ Application as such, then even this petitioner was not entitled for any appointment or engagement as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the very first place. In totality, therefore, both the Writ Applications are dismissed. The order impugned passed by the Appellate Authority is not required to be interfered with, as both the petitioners suffer from inherent ineligibility of Patna High Court CWJC No.15204 of 2009 (6) dt.29-01-2013 5/5 consideration for such engagement, but was obviously done by the Panchayat for other extraneous reasons and not because they had a right. SKM/- (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)