Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21508 of 2012 ====================================================== Priti Kumari D/O Pravin Kumar Resident Of Professor Colony, Naugachiya, P.S- Naugachiya, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Secretary, Education Department, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Patna, Bihar. 3. The District Magistrate, Bhagalpur. 4. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Bhagalpur. 5. The District Education Officer, (Establishment) H.R.D., Bhagalpur. 6. The District Superintendent Of Education Bhagalpur. 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Gopalpur, Block, District- Bhagalpur. 8. The Block Developement Officer, Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Dumariya, Chaparghat, Police Station- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Dumariya Chaparghat, Police Station- Gopalpur, District- Bhagalpur. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 18-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1(A) A writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order/orders, direction for quashing the order dated 06.10.2012 vide memo no. 1075 passed in Appeal Wad Case No. 13 of 2012 (Annexure-12) by the Learned District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Bhagalpur (Respondent no.4) whereby and where under the Learned Tribunal cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the complaint of Gunjan Kumar and others merely on the grounds that Gunjan Kumar and others were not counseling in the meeting of appointment committee.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.21508 of 2012 (2) dt.18-06-2013 2 (B) A writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/orders, direction commanding the respondents for the following:- I. To reinstate the petitioner as a Panchayat Teacher on their respective places because of the fact that the petitioner possess more marks than them who appeared in counseling in the merit list prepared by the selection committee. II. To direct the respondent authority to treat the service of the petitioner from the date of their joining of their post and also pay the consequential benefits thereto. III. To direct the selection and joining of the petitioner as legal, regular and with the provisions of law.”
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order passed by the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal dated 6.10.2012, has submitted that the appointment of the petitioner and others on the post of Panchayat Teacher has been interfered by the Tribunal in a most perfunctory manner, inasmuch as, the findings recorded therein as with regard to mass irregularity in the selection process is contrary to the stand taken by the Panchayat Secretary in his application submitted before the competent authority. In this regard, learned counsel has referred to a communication of the Panchayat Secretary dated 17.3.2012 addressed to the member of the Tribunal and another communication to the District Programme Officer dated 16.3.2012 Patna High Court CWJC No.21508 of 2012 (2) dt.18-06-2013 3 contained in Annexure-8. 4. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the order of the Tribunal being a speaking order dealing with each and every aspect including mass irregularity in the selection process would not require any interference. He has also submitted that the stand of the Panchayat Secretary has been hovering and shifting, inasmuch as, in the report to the authorities, he had blamed that the entire selection was made at the behest of Mukhia who did not allow the others members even in participating much less taking part in the selection process. 5. On perusal of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, two things are very clear, namely, (i) a large number of persons were adversely effected on account of the alleged infirmities committed in course of selection in the second round of appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher and (ii) the Tribunal was deprived of the original records relating to selection on the ground that the custodian of the documents, namely, the Panchayat Secretary had himself reported that these documents were forcibly taken away by the Mukhia and her husband. 6. In such a situation, the Tribunal has made a detailed discussion of the mass illegality committed in the process of selection and its findings are well considered which cannot be said to be based on any ipse dixit. Such findings, being relevant Patna High Court CWJC No.21508 of 2012 (2) dt.18-06-2013 4 for the purpose of this case, are quoted hereinbelow:- ^^36- lHkh vihykFkhZ ,oa oRrZeku iapk;r lfpo ds vkjksiksa ij vkjksih iapk;r f’k{kd dh vksj ls muds vf/koDrk dk dguk Fkk fd xzke iapk;r Mqefj;k pij?kV ds f}rh; pj.k f’k{kd fu;kstu 2008 foHkkxh; vkns’k o izkIr fjfDr;kWa jksLVj ds vuq:i foHkkxh; fu;e ds vuqlkj iwjh ikjnf’kZrk ds lkFk fd;k x;kA dkmaflfyax dh izfdz;k fof/kor :i ls viuk;h x;h FkhA fu;kstu dh izfdz;k ds rgr dksfVokj izf’kf{kr@vizf’kf{kr dV vkWQ ekDlZ fu/kkZfjr dj blds laca/k esa lkjs vH;fFkZ;ksa dks [kqys rkSj ij lwpuk fuxZr djrs gq, tkudkjh ns nh x;h FkhA dV vkWQ ekDlZ ,oa vafre es?kk lwph dk fyLV nhokj ij fpidk fn;k x;k FkkA vafre es/kk lwph@dksfVokj es/kk lwph ls mPpre es/kk vad okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks p;u foHkkzx ds }kjk fuxZr jksLVj ds vuq:i iapk;r lfpo ,oa l{ke inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk izk:i rS;kj dh x;hA p;u ds mijkar foHkkx ds }kjk vkoafVr fo|ky; okj fjfDr;kWa ds vuq:i p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fo|ky; esa inLFkkfir djrs gq, fu;kstu i= dk forj.k fd;k x;kA 37- iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh] xksikyiqj us ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh Hkkxyiqj dks lanfHkZr fu;kstu jn~n djus gsrq vuq’kaflr i= tks bl izkf/kdkj dks Hkh lefiZr gS] es a izfrosfnr fd;k fd xzke iapk;r Mqefj;k pij?kV ds iapk;r lfpo Jh dqekj fujatu }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd f’k{kd fu;kstu 2008 ls lacaf/kr dksbZ vfHkys[k buds ikl ugha gS rFkk eqf[k;k Jherh lqfurk nsoh ,oa eqf[k;k ifr Jh y{e.k e.My }kjk buls tcjnLrh fu;kstu i= ij gLrk{kj djk fy;k x;k gSaA bl laca/k eas lacaf/kr iapk;r lfpo }kjk ftyk inkf/kdkjh Hkkxyiqj dks Hkh iwoZ esa LogLrfyf[kr vkosnu i= fn;k tk pqdk gSA Mqefj;k pij?kV iapk;r lfefr lnL;k Jherh fcUnq nsoh ,oa f’k{kd fu;kstu esa lfEefyr vH;fFkZ;ksa }kjk Hkh f’kdk;r dh x;h gS fd mUgsa dkamflafyax esa vuqifLFkr ntZ dj dkmaflfyax dk LFkku iapk;r Hkou ds cnys e/; fo|ky; Mqefj;k pij?kV esa jkf= dky esa pqids ls dkmaflfyax djk dj de vad okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u dj fu;kstu i= fn;k x;k gS] tks U;k;klaxr ugha gSA Patna High Court CWJC No.21508 of 2012 (2) dt.18-06-2013 5 38- iqu% iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh us Jh dqekj fujatu] rRdkyhu iapk;r lfpo dk fnukad 11-05-12 dk vkosnu i= layXu djrs gq, vko’;d dkjZokbZ gsrq bl izkf/kdkj esa i= Hkstk gS] ftlesa rRdkyhu iapk;r lfpo }kjk iapk;r dk;kZy; ds i=kad 01 …[k‰ fnukad 02-01-12 fdlh tkylkt O;fDr ds }kjk iapk;r lfpo ds QthZ gLrk{kj ls fuxZr crk;k x;k gSA lkFk gh rRdkyhu iapk;r lfpo us mDr i= dks fy[kus okys iapk;r f’k{kd ij dkuwuh dkjZokbZ djus dk vuqjks/k fd;k gSA eUrO; 39- nksuksa i{kksa dh lquokbZ] iapk;r lfpo }kjk miyC/k djk;s x;s vfHkys[k ,oa bl izkf/kdkj esa iwoZ esa lafpr vfHkys[kksa ds xgu voyksduksijkUr~ lanfHkZr~ fu;kstu esa dkQh vfu;ferrk,a ik;h x;h tks fuEuor~ gS%& …i‰ vkosnu dzekad 101 ij ’kksHkk dqekjh] firk&vjfoUn dqekj] tUe frfFk&05-01-72 fiNM+k oxZ vafdr gS rFkk fnukad 30- 12-08 ds vafre es/kk lwph esa es/kk dzekad 421 ij es/kk vad 46-33 ds lkFk vafdr gS] tcfd vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk ’kksHkk dqekjh] ifr jkts’k e.My] tUe frfFk 01-01-73 dksfV&v0fi0 oxZ dk uke mlh dzekad ij NsM+NkM+ dj ’kkfey fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk ’kksHkk dqekjh dk uke fnukad 30-12-08 ds vafre es/kk lwph esa Hkh ’kkfey ugha gSA bl izdkj fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk ’kksHkk dqekjh dk fu;kstu ^^voS/k izfof"V** dj fd;k x;k gSA Qyr% vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk ’kksHkk dqekjh bl fu;kstu ds vkosnd gh ugha gSA …ii‰ vkjksih iapk;r f’k{kd ve‘"k jtd dk uke fnukad 30- 12-08 ds vafre es/kk lwph esa es/kk dze 928 ij es/kk vad 45-88 ds lkFk vafdr gS tcfd budk fu;kstu es/kk vad …45-88$20‰=65-88 ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gSA Qyr% Li"V gS fd budk okLrfod es/kk vad 45-88 gh gS] fdUrq ckn esa vuqHko izek.k i= layXu dj fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk vkjksih iapk;r f’k{kd ve‘"k jtd dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k gS] tks fcYdqy voS/k gSA …iii‰ vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk jkuh dk okLrfod es/kk vad 63 gh gS tcfd mudk fu;kstu vuqHko izek.k i= layXu dj Patna High Court CWJC No.21508 of 2012 (2) dt.18-06-2013 6 es/kk vad 63$20=83 ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gSA bl laca/k esa fnukad 30-12-08 dk vafre es/kk lwph ,oa fnukad 28-02-09 dk dkmaflfyax iath nz"VO; gS D;ksafd mDr iath ij vkjksih iapk;r f’k{kd dk es/kk vad 63 gh vafdr gSA ifj.kker% Li"V gS fd budk okLrfod es/kk vad 63 gh gS] fdUrq vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk }kjk ckn esa vuqHko izek.k i= layXu dj fu;kstu dk ykHk fy;k x;k gS] tks voS/k gSA …vi‰ vkosnu dzekad 788 ij okLrfod vH;FkhZ lquhrk dqekjh] firk&jkeujs’k izlkn] tUe frfFk&11-07-80 vafdr gS] tcfd ewy foHkkxh; iath esa mDr dzekad ij NsM+NkM+ djrs gq, firk ds dkWye esa fcUns’ojh izlkn e.My rFkk tue frfFk 01-03- 81 vasfdr fd;k x;k gSA lkFk gh fnukad 30-12-08 ds vafdr es/kk lwph esa Hkh vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk lquhrk dqekjh dk uke ’kkfey ugha gSA bl izdkj Li"V gS fd vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk bl fu;kstu ds vkosnd gh ugha gSA …v‰ vkjksih iapk;r f’k{kd pUnz’ks[kj lqeu dk fu;kstu es/kk vad 81-66 ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k gS] tcfd budk uke fnukad 30-12-08 esa vafre es/kk lwph esa es/kk dzekad 310 ij es/kk vad 61-66 gh gS] fdUrq ckn esa vuqHko izek.k i= layXu dj voS/k :i ls vkjksih iapk;r f’k{kd pUnz’ks[kj lqeu dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k gSA …vi‰ vkosnu dzekad 785 ds okLrfod vH;FkhZ lqeu dqekj] firk&jktsUnz e.My vafdr gS] tcfd ewy iath ij NsM+NkM+ djrs gq, lqeu dqekjh] ifr⪫ dqekj jtd] tUe frfFk&05-01-90 izfo"V djrs gq, vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk lqeu dqekj dk voS/k fu;kstu fd;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vkjksih iapk;r f’kf{kdk lqeu dqwekjh bl fu;kstu ds vkosnd gh ugha gSA …vii‰ fnukad 20-01-12 ,oa 01-02-12 ds dkmaflfyax iath ij fu;ksftr vH;FkhZ ds lkFk&lkFk dfri; vU; vH;fFkZ;kaas ds gLrk{kj esa Li"V :i ls fHkUurk ifjyf{kr gksrk gS] ftlls vihykFkhZ ,oa oRrZeku iapk;r lfpo dk ;g vkjksi fd QthZ dkmaflfyax dj pgsrs vH;fFkZ;ksa dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k gS] lgh izrhr gksrk gSA Patna High Court CWJC No.21508 of 2012 (2) dt.18-06-2013 7 …ix‰ vkjksih iapk;r f’k{kd lat; dqekj o:.k] izhrh dqekjh ,oa fiadh dqekjh dk es/kk vad Hkh vihykFkhZ ls de gSA 40- vihykFkhZ iou dqekj jtd dks NksM+dj ds vkjksi ds laca/k esa rRdkyhu iapk;r lfpo }kjk fn;k x;k izfrosnu larks"kizn ,oa fu;ekuqdqy ugha gSA 41- vkjksih iapk;r f’k{kd ds fo:n~/k yxk;s x;s vkjksi ds laca/k esa tckc nkf[ky ugha fd;k tk ldkA 42- bl izdkj Li"V gS fd lanfHkZr fu;kstu esa dsoy [kkukiwfrZ dj voS/k :i ls vius pgsrs vH;FkhZ dk fu;kstu xyr es/kk vad xSj vkosnd ,oa QthZ dkmaflfyax dk lgkjk ysdj fd;k x;k gS] tks iw.kZr% jn~n gksus yk;d gSA lkFk gh nks"kh O;fDr ij vko’;d dkjZokbZ Hkh visf{kr gSA 43- vihykFkhZ xqatu dqekj ,oa vU; dk nkok lgh ik;s tkus ds QyLo:i xzke iapk;r Mqefj;k pij?kV] iz[k.M&xksikyiqj ds f}rh; pj.k f’k{kd fu;kstu esa fu;ksftr lHkh iapk;r f’k{kd dk fu;kstu jn~n djrs gq, iqu% l{ke inkf/kdkjh dh ns[kjs[k esa fu;ekuqlkj fu;kstu izfdz;k iwjh djus dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gSA lkFk gh voS/k fu;kstu djus ds vkjksi esa iapk;r fu;kstu bdkbZ ij izkFkfedh ntZ dj vko’;d dkjZokbZ djus dh vuq’kalk dh tkrh gSA** (underlining for emphasis) 7. It would thus be clear from underlined portion of the aforesaid impugned order that not only the Panchayat Secretary but even the District Programme Officer was fully satisfied with regard to mass bungling committed in selection and appointment of all the Panchayat teachers but they had also brought them to the notice of the Tribunal that there was mass illegality committed in the process of selection primarily by the Mukhia and her husband. The process of appointment on the post Patna High Court CWJC No.21508 of 2012 (2) dt.18-06-2013 8 of Panchayat Teacher does not give any primacy to the Mukhia much less to the husband of the Mukhia. Such appointment has to be made by a Committee of which Panchayat Secretary is the main government representative apart from the other officials. When the Panchayat Secretary himself had reported that the Mukhia and her husband had forcibly taken away the records and there were sufficient materials to show that interpolation was also made by inflating the marks of the selected candidates, nothing more is required to be said about the gross illegality in the entire appointment made in the second set of selection on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The decision, therefore, of the Tribunal to set aside the entire appointment including that of the petitioner cannot be said to be bad only because the case of the petitioner was never dealt with separately. Specially when a clear finding has been recorded that the petitioner's mark were quite low as against the other applicants whose cases were ignored and not selected only on account of mass illegality and interpolation in the records of selection. The law in this regard stands well settled that if there is a mass illegality in the selection process and the consequential appointment, no individual right can be claimed by the selected candidates for being retained in service. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the judgment of the Apex Patna High Court CWJC No.21508 of 2012 (2) dt.18-06-2013 9 Court in the case of Krishna Yadav Vs. State of Haryana reported in (1994) 4 SCC 165 wherein while setting aside selection and appointment of 96 tax inspectors found to be tainted with interpolation, forgery and fictous award of marks and whose records of selection had been destroyed by the Public Service Commission it was held as follows:- "It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten tht the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a Minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless." 9. That being so, this Court does not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-