Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17016 of 2013 ====================================================== 1.Punam Kumari W/O Bhujendra Prasad Mehta R/O Village Paharpur, P.O.+P.S.- Suryagarha, District- Lakhisarai 2.Anand Raj S/O Shatrughan Prasad Yadav R/O Village- Mahmadpur, P.O.- Farda, District- Munger 3.Sunita Kumari D/O Krishan Ravidas R/O Village Ram Toliganj, P.O. Kajra, District- Lakhisarai 4.Asha Kumari W/O Guru Dayal Yadav R/O Village Mohanpur, P.O.- Dharahar, District- Munger. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai 5. The District Superintendent Of Education, Lakhisarai 6. The Block Development Officer, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai 8.The Panchayat Sachiv, Urain Gram Panchayat, Urain, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai 9. The Mukhiya, Urain Gram Panchayat, Urain, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai 10.The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Lakhisarai Through Its Member 11.Radha Devi W/O Name Not Known To The Petitioner The Then Mukhiya, Urain Gram Panchayat, Urain, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai 12.Hari Lal Singh S/O Name Not Known To The Petitioner, The Then Panchayat Secretary, Urain Gram Panchayat, Urain, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai Through The District Magistrate, Lakhisarai 13.Sindhu Kumari W/O Name Not Known To The Petitioner The Then Mukhiya, Urain Gram Panchayat, Urain, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai 14.Prem Kumar S/O Name Not Known To The Petitioner, The Then Mukhiya, Urain Gram Panchayat, Urain, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai 15.Renu Kumari W/O Name Not Known To The Petitioner, Through Radha Devi, W/O Name Not Known To The Petitioner The Then Mukhiya, Urain Gram Panchayat, Urain, Suryagarha, Lakhisarai. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Narayansingh, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. V.M.K Sinha AAG-13 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER Patna High Court CWJC No.17016 of 2013 (2) dt.11-09-2013 2 2 11-09-2013
Facts
Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Having regard to the findings arrived by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal(hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in the impugned order, wherein, the case of the petitioners and private respondents have been directed to be reconsidered after giving notice to all of them and holding fresh counselling, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order specially when the Tribunal has looked into the original records and has found existence of two parallel registers both containing the evidence of counselling of the respective candidates,
Legal Reasoning
does not impress this Court in view of the findings recorded by the Tribunal as with regard to the nature of records presented before the Tribunal which on their perusal has recorded the following findings:- ^^earO; 11- fu;kstu bdkbZ mjSu iapk;r ls nks iath lefiZr fd;k x;k gS iath la&05 ekud iath gS ftls izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;kstu iath 2008 ds uke ls tkuk tkrk gS ;g iath fu;ksu bdkbZ mjSu ¼lw;Zx<+k½ dks Patna High Court CWJC No.17016 of 2013 (2) dt.11-09-2013 3 ftyk iapk;r jkt inkf/kdkjh] y[khljk; ds gLrk{kj ,oe~ inuke eqgj ds lkFk lefiZr fd;k x;k gS nwljk iath ek= iath ugha gS rFkk mls mRrjkf/kdkjh iapk;r lfpo j?kqnso ;kno }kjk vius gh gLrk{kj ,oe~ inuke eqgj ls [kksyk x;k gSA ftldh ekU;rk f'k{kd fu;qfDr 2008 ds izko/kkuksa ds vUnj ugha gSA 12- ekud iath dks nLrkost la0&1 ,oe~ i0 lfpo] j?kqnso ;kno }kjk [kksyk x;k iath dks mDr vkns'k esa djok ist la0&2 ds uke ls Lej.k fd;k tk;sxk vFkok mYys[k fd;k tk;sxkA 13- nLrkost la0&1 esa dqy 100 i`"B gS ftlesa i`"B 1 ls 99 rd dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS rFkk i`"B la0&100 [kkyh gSA nLrkost la0&2 esa i`"B la0&1 ls 9 dk mi;ksx fd;k x;k gS nLrkost la0&2 fnuakd 29-12-2010 dh frfFk esa [kksyk x;k gS ftlesa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ds vkns'kkuqlkj ewy izdj.k iFk dk lR;kiu dkmaflafyax djk;k x;kA nLrkost la0&2 ds i`"B 4 ls 9 rd dk;Zokgh iath ds :i esa iz;ksn esa yk;k x;k gSA 14- nLrkost la0&2 ds fooj.k ls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkosnu izfr ekuds iath vFkkZr nLrkost la0&1 n'kkZ;k x;k gS nLrkost la0&1 ess dqy 1094 vH;fFkZ;ksa dk vkosnu izkIr djus dk fooj.k miyC/k gS tks i`"B la0&95 ij lekIr gksrk gS] nLrkost la0&1 ds i`"B 96 ls 99 rd dkmaflafyax dk fooj.k n'kkZ;k x;k gSA 15- vr% nLrkost la0&2 ds i`"B 9 ij ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dk p;u ds i'pkr fo|ky; vkoafVr fd;k x;k gS mudk uke fuEu izdkj gSA ¼1½ vkuan jkt ¼2½ rjUuqe f'kjh ¼3½ lkbZLrk vatqe ¼4½ vk'kk dqekjh ¼5½ iwue dqekjh ,oa ¼6½ lquhrk dqekjh 16- pwafd mRrjkf/kdkjh ia0 lfpo j?kqnso ;kno }kjk vkosnu izkfIr gsrq nLrkost la0&2 layXu vFkkZr nLrkost la0&1 ftlij vkosnu i= dk fooj.k gS ds vykos dksbZ vkosnu izfr iath ugha tek fd;k gS cfYd mlh vkosnu izkfIr iath vFkkZr nLrkost la0&1 dks vk/kkfjr fd;k x;k gS oSlh fLFkfr es a muds }kjk p;fur lHkk ?k esa dfeZ;ksa dk fooj.k vkosnu izfr iath eas vFkkZr nLrkost la0&1 ls feyku fd;k tkuk vfr vko';d ds lkFk&lkFk U;k;ksfpr gS nLrkost la0&1 esa mu ?k vH;fFkZ;ks dk uke ik;k x;k vFkok feykA ,oe~ vk'kk Patna High Court CWJC No.17016 of 2013 (2) dt.11-09-2013 4 dqekjh lh0MCyw0ts0lh0 la0&15235@2011 esa ;kfpdkdRrkZ dk uke vk'kk dqekjh ifr xq:ey ;kno] xzke&eksguiqj] i=ky;&/kjgjk] ftyk eqaxsj ds :i esas ugha feykA 17- nksuksa i{kksa ds fookn gS fd fjV ;kfpdk esa foi{kh latq dqekjh izse dqekj ,oe js.kq dqekjh dk dkmaflafyax iwoZork iapk;r lfpo ,oe eqf[k;k ds tekus esa gqvkFkk tks nLrkost la0&1 i`"B 96 ls 99 vUrxZr gS fadarq fu;kstu i= fn, tkus ls iwoZ mRrjkf/kdkjh iapk;r lfpo j?kqnso ;kno us euekus rjhds ls iath [kksydj ns[ksa nLrkost la0&2 euekfud fu;kstu dj fy;k tks voS/k gSaA ;kfpdkdRrkZx.k dk dFku gS fd dkmaflafyax mRrjkf/kdkjh iapk;r lfpo j?kqnso ;kno ds tekus esa gqvk ftles a muyksxska dk p;u dkmaflafyax ds i'pkr lgh rjhdk ls fd;k x;k gSA 18- mijksDr fo'ys"k.kksijkUr ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd mRrjkf/kdkjh iapk;r lfpo us nLrkost la0&2 izkfIr gsrq fdlh le; inkf/kdkjh ls laidZ fd;k gS vkSj u rks ekud iath izkIr fd;k gS muds }kjk cktkj ls iath [kjhndj fnukad 29-10-2010 dks [kksyk x;k gS tks f'k{kd fu;qfDr 17-2008 ds izko/kkuksa ds foijhr gS ftls fof/k vuqdqy ?kksf"kr ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS ifj.kke Lo:i mRrjkf/kdkjh iapk;r lfpo }kjk p;u lwph ,oa rRi'pkr inLFkkiu lwph ekU; fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gSA 19- nwljh rjQ izse dqekj] fla/kq dqekjh ,oa js.kq dqekjh dk nkok dk iwoZorhZ eqf[k;k jk/kk nsoh ,oe~ iwoZorhZ iapk;r lfpo ds le; esa dkmaflafyax dh xbZ Fkh tks ekud iath vFkkZr nLrkost la0&1 ds i`"B 96 ls 99 rd vafdr gS rFkk fu;kstu dk lHkh ekud iqjk fd, gSa tks muds p;u ,oe~ inLFkkiu esa dksbZ :dkoV iSnk ugha djrk gS] vr% mDr nkok lkdkj dj fu;kstu bdkbZ dks fu;ksftr djus dk vkns'k fn;k tk; ;k oRrZeku ifjfLFkfr esa ekU; fd, tkus ;ksX; ugha gS D;ksafd vkosnu i= ,oa dkmaflfyax ds chp dk dk;Zokgh iath@vfHkys[k ij ugha yk;k x;k gSa iqu% dkmaflafyax fnuakad 2-01-2009 esa n'kkZ;k x;k gS fdUrq fu;kstu bdkbZ ds lnL;ksa ds gLrk{kj ds uhps vFkok gLrk{kj ds lkFk frfFk vafdr ugha fd;k x;k gS tks dkmaflfyax ,oe lansgkLin curk gSa Patna High Court CWJC No.17016 of 2013 (2) dt.11-09-2013 5 vr% foHkkx ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ds izko/kkuks a dh vogsyuk dj lEiUu dg xbZ fu;kstu izfdz;k leku :i ls fujLr fd;k tkrk gS fu;kstu bdkbZ mjSu dks funs'k fn;k tkrk gS fd ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj ls vko';d funsZ'k izkIr dj fQj ls fu;kstu izfdz;k iwjh djsaA** 4. The aforesaid finding of fact cannot be interfered by this Court specially when there is no allegation of its being based on any error of record. This court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not expected to act as an appellate authority on such concluded findings of fact. 5. In any event if the petitioners have higher marks they again would be successful in getting their appointment and therefore there would be no question of any break in their service if they are again reappointed on the basis of their counselling. 6. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court does not find anything bad to interfere with the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)
Arguments
3. The plea raised Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners had higher marks in comparison to the private respondents and therefore, their appointment and continuation after the counselling should not have been subjected to further scrutiny