Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16749 of 2013 ====================================================== Nagma Tarannum Daughter Of Md. Saifur Rahman Resident Of Village And P.O. Garhara- I, Ward No. 12, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. Secretary, Department Of Human Resources, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 5. District Education Officer, Begusarai 6. Block Education Officer, Barauni, District- Begusarai 7. Block Development Officer, Barauni, District Begusarai 8. Executive Officer, Nagar Parishad, Bihat, District Begusarai 9. Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai 10. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Garhara- 1, P.S. Barauni District Begusarai 11. Md. Javed Akhtar Son Of Abul Kalam Resident Of Village Papraur, P.O. Tilrath, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai 12. Geeta Kumari Daughter Of Shiv Kumar Sahu Resident Of Village Mahna, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai 13. Malka Jahan Daughter Of Jamaluddin Resident Of Village Garhara- 1, Ward No. 12, Bihat Nagar Parishad, P.S. Barauni, District Begusarai .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : M/s. Ajay Kr. Thakur & Md.Imteyaz Ahmad For the State : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Pd. Sinha, A.C. to GP 17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 04-09-2013 The defect, as pointed out by the office, be ignored. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Having regard to the appreciation made by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Begusarai (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in its order dated 20.06.2013 this Court is not inclined to interfere with the same inasmuch as the Tribunal has gone to the root of the matter while unsettling the appointment 2 of the petitioner. Admittedly, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Urdu teacher and the private respondent no.11, having the qualification of Moulvi, was not even included in the Zone of consideration because the recruiting Unit, the Panchayat, did not think it appropriate to make a panel after also considering the case of all eligible candidates having the qualification of Moulvi. Thus, when the respondent no.11 got eliminated on account of faulty merit list drawn and the consequential counseling, he had raised this issue by filing the complaint before the Tribunal. It is this aspect of the matter, which has been decided by the Tribunal wherein it has been held that the appointment of the petitioner was bad on account of complete non-consideration of other eligible candidates having qualification of Moulvi as would be found from the following findings in the impugned order:- vfHkys[k dk voyksdu fd;kA vihy vkosnu ds dFku ,oa vihykFkhZ ds vf/koDrk ds cgl ds foUnw ij fopkj fd;kA iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh dk izfrosnu rFkk foi{kh uxek rjUuqe ,oa eydktgk¡ ds vkifRr vkosnu@fyf[kr i{k ij Hkh fopkj fd;kA vkj0Vh0vkbZ0 ds rgr iz[kaM f”k{kk inkf/kdkjh] cjkSuh dk i=kad 345 ij Hkh fopkj fd;kA x<+gjk&01 iapk;r gsrq miyC/k nks in gsrq jksLVj foUnw dk voyksdu fd;k tks mnwZ f”k{kd in gsrq gSA vfHkys[k ij miyC/k vkosnu iath dh vfHkizekf.kr iath esa vihykFkhZ tkosn v[rj dk uke gS] ftldk izkIrkad 73 izfr”kr gSA eydktgk¡ dk Hkh uke gS ftldk izkIrkad 60-11 gS tks vfr fiNM+k oxZ dk gSA ysfdu uxek rjUuqe dk izkIrkad 60-22 izfr”kr gS] tks lkekU; Js.kh dh vH;FkhZ gSA vihykFkhZ 3 ,oa uxek rjUuqe nksuksa lkekU; Js.kh ds vH;FkhZ gSA ftl in ij uxek rjUuqe dk fu;kstu gqvk gS og in iq0@e0 gsrq gSA vihykFkhZ ekSyoh fMxzh/kkjh gS tcfd uxek rjUuqe ekSyoh Mhxzh/kkjh ugha gSA cfYd baVj esa mnwZ fo’k; j[krs gq, mRrh.kZ gSA fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk ekSyoh Mhxzh dk es/kk lwfp ugha cuk;k tkuk rFkk ekSyoh Mhxzh/kkjh vihykFkhZ dks dkmaflfyax ,oa fu;kstu ls oafpr fd;k tkuk iapk;r f”k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh dh /kkjk 6 ds fo:) gSA lkekU; Js.kh ds mnwZ f”k{kd in fu;ksftr uxek rjUuqe dk izkIrkad vihykFkhZ ls cgqr de gSA lkFk gh uxek rjUuqe ekSyoh Mhxzh/kkjh ugha gS tcfd ;g in ekSyoh Mhxzh/kkjh ds fy, gS] ftlij f”k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh dh /kkjk 6 ds rgr mnwZ ;ksX;rk/kkjh ds lkFk lkFk ekSyoh Mhxzh/kkjh dk fu;kstu gksuk pkfg, FkkA mijksDr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa uxek rjUuqe dk fu;kstu voS/k ,oa iapk;r f”k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh dh /kkjk 6 ds fo:) gSA vr% uxek rjUuqe dk fu;kstu jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA
Legal Reasoning
Though Mr. Ajoy Kumar Thakur has tried to distinguish the case of the petitioner of fulfilling the criteria of general Urdu Teacher vis-à-vis Oriental Urdu teacher by referring to some restriction, this Court would find it difficult to accept the same because Rule 6 of the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Evam Seva Shart) Niyamawali, 2006 does not prescribe any such criteria and, in fact, talks of eligibility of Urdu teacher only. Rule 6 in this regard being relevant is quoted hereinbelow: 6- mnwZ f”k{kdks a dk fu;kstu%& fo|ky; ds ek= mnwZ bdkbZ;ksa ij mnwZ ;ksX;rk j[kus okys rFkk ekSyoh ;ksX;rk/kkjh vH;fFkZ;ksa dk fu;kstu fd;k tk;sxkA 4 From perusal of the aforementioned Rule it would be clear that whenever the appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher by way of Urdu teacher, has to be made, all the persons having qualification either or Moulvi or other Urdu qualification will have to be considered. Mr. Thakur, however, has expanded his submission by assailing the aforementioned order of the Tribunal on a different ground. According to him, the Tribunal ought to have not disturbed the appointment of the petitioner even if it had found the same to be vitiated inasmuch as respondent no.13 having lesser marks to the petitioner was required to make way for the petitioner because her appointment on the post of general teacher (Samanya Shikshak) having lesser marks than the petitioner cannot be sustained. Mr. Thakur has, accordingly submitted that if the Tribunal had displaced the petitioner on account of non-consideration of respondent no.12 it was still required to consider the case of the petitioner vise a vis respondent no.13, Malka Jhan. This Court however would find that the Tribunal was not required to go into this aspect but then if the petitioner has any grievance against the appointment and continuation of respondent no.13 who, prima facie, seems to have been 5 included in the panel on the post of Urdu teacher reserved for the most backward category, the petitioner can still move the Tribunal only confining her grievance only against respondent no.13. In the event the petitioner would move the Tribunal as with regard to her another grievance against the appointment and continuation of respondent no.13 the same will be examined by the Tribunal on its own merit without being prejudiced by anything said the impugned order or this order.
Decision
Thus in the result this application fails and the order of the Tribunal is hereby approved and its direction for appointment of respondent no.11 must be complied forthwith, if it has not been carried out till date. Subject to the aforesaid observation this writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)