Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18516 of 2013 ====================================================== Kameshwar Manjhi Son Of Ranjit Manjhi @ Ranjit Manjhi Resident Of Village - Fakuli, P.O. - Goraipur, P.S. - Avtarnagar, District - Saran At Chapra .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director Department Of Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Saran Division, Saran At Chapra 4. The District Education Officer, Saran 5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Saran 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Jhauwan Dighwara, P.S. - Avatarnagar, District - Saran 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Jhauwan Dighwara, P.S. - Avatarnagar, District - Saran 8. The Block Education Officer, Dighwara, District - Saran 9. The District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Saran Through Its Member 10. Anil Kumar Manjhi Son Of Harilal Paswan Resident Of Village + P.O. - Haraji, P.S.- Avtarnagar, District - Saran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.A. Alam ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 29-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to legality and correctness of an order dated 26.12.2012 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saran (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Appeal Case No. 17 of 2011. Having regard to the fact that the petitioner’s grievance before the Tribunal was solely based that a person having lesser
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.18516 of 2013 (2) dt.29-10-2013 2 marks to him, namely, respondent no.10 Anil Kumar Manjhi was appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in the month of March,2009 and that the petitioner had filed such a complaint on 14.2.2011 before the Tribunal, this Court would find that the Tribunal’s approach in non-suiting the petitioner does not suffer from any error. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was seeking a departmental remedy in fact will have no significance in the matter because as against the decision taken by the Panchayat no other authority has been vested power to reverse the decision and it is only the Tribunal which came into existence with effect from 25.8.2008 had been vested with the jurisdiction to nullify the decision of the Panchayat. Once this aspect becomes clear it would be also very easy to approve the finding of the Tribunal as with regard to the claim of the petitioner of participating in the counseling. The Tribunal in this regard having gone into the original records has found that the petitioner did not participate in the counseling whereas 17 candidates including the private respondent had done so. The onus, therefore, was squarely on the petitioner to prove that he had actually appeared in the counseling. From the application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal it would be clear that though he had claimed to have appeared in the counseling but he had not Patna High Court CWJC No.18516 of 2013 (2) dt.29-10-2013 3 even disclosed the date of his counseling. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal’s finding reading as follows: ^^fcUnq&2 izfroknh 1 ,oa 2 ds }kjk fu;kstu lacaf/kr dkxtkr nkf[ky fd, x, gSa ftlesa izf’kf{kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dk es/kk lwph rS;kj dh x;h ftlds voyksdu ls Kkr gksrk gS fd vkosnd v’kksd dqekj flag lkekU; dksfV esa dzekad 1 ij uke ntZ gS ftudk es/kk vad eSfVzd esas 588@900 = 65-33 rFkk izf’k{k.k izkIrkad ch0Vh0 1159@1500= 77-26 izfr’kr izkIr gS] ftudk dqy es/kk vad 72-79 izfr’kr ntZ gSA vH;qfDr esa fy[kk gqvk gS izf’k{k.k laLFkku dk lgh izek.k nsa blh izdkj vkosnd dkes’oj eka>h vuqlwfpr tkfr iq:"k ,oa efgyk esa dzekad 1 ij ntZ gS ftudk es/kk vad eSfVzd 55@900= 61-656 izfr’kr] osVst vad 20] vukSipkfjd vuqns’kd dk dqy es/kk vad 81-66 izfr’kr gSa fnukad 15-02-2009 dks fu;kstu lfefr dh f}rh; cSBd izLrko 2 esa ;g loZlEefr ls ikfjr fd;k x;k gS fd izdkf’kr lwph ds fo:n~/k ,d Hkh vkifRr vkosnu nkf[ky ugha gqvkA vr% vafre es/kk lwph izdkf’kr dh tk, lkFk gh ;g Hkh fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd vafre es/kk lwph izdk’ku gsrq loZlEefr ls lEiq"V dj nh x;h gS] tks fuEu izdkj gS ftlds voyksdu ls ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd vkosnd v’kksd dqekj flag dk uke dzekad 1@103 ntZ gSaA mlh izdkj vuqlwfpt tkfr iq:"k@efgyk lwph esa dzekad 1@160 ntZ gSa mijksDr lwph ;g ;g vfHkO;Dr gksrk gS fd fu;kstu bdkbZ us vafre es/kk lwph rS;kj djus esa dksbZ xyrh ugha djrs gq, fu;ekuqdqy lwph rS;kj dh x;h gS lkFk ;g Hkh O;Dr gksrk gS fd fdlh izdkj dk }s"k muds eu esa ugha FkkA mijksDr rF;ksa ls izekf.kr gksrk gS fd nksuksa vkosndx.k dk uke es/kk vad ds vk/kkj ij vafre es/kk lwph ds dzekad 1 ij ntZ gSA fcUnq 3 fu;kstu bdkbZ dh dk;Zokgh iqfLrdk ds voyksdu ls Kkr gS fd cSBd 2 fnukad 19-09-2009 ds izLrko 9 esa loZlEefr ls ikfjr fd;k x;k fd vafre es/kk lwph ds vuqlkj p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dks dkmaflafyxa esa Hkkx ys ldsA i=kpkj ds ek/;e ls voxr djkuk gSa iqu% fnukad 28-02- Patna High Court CWJC No.18516 of 2013 (2) dt.29-10-2013 4 2009 dks fu;kstu lfefr dh cSBd dh rRdkyhu eqf[k;k eatq nsoh dh v/;{krk esa dh x;h gS ,oa dkmaflafyax dh izfdz;k izkr% 10 cts ls izkjEHk dh x;h ftlesa dqy 17 vH;FkhZ mifLFkr gq, ftldh lwph dk;Zokgh iqfLrdk ds lkFk layXu gS lkFk gh izLrko 3 loZlEefr ls ikfjr djrs mYysf[kr fd;k x;k fd vafre es/kk vad lwph ds vk/kkj ij p;fur vH;fFkZ;ksa dqy 17 vH;fFkZ;ksa dk lk{kkRdkj ,oa dkmaflafyax ess le; vof/k ds chp Hkkx ys lds ftuesa ,d Hkh izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr ugha gks ldk pqafd ljdkjh vkns’kkuqlkj izf’kf{kr vH;fFkZ;ksa dks izkFkfedrk nsuk gS ysfdu ,d Hkh izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr ugha gq, bl fy, izLrko loZ lEefr ls ikfjr fd;k x;k fd vizf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gq, gS] mUgha esa es/kk vad ds vuqlkj rhuksa fjfDr;ksa dks Hkjk tk,A izLrko 4 bl fcUnq ij ikfjr fd;k x;k fd lkekU; dksfV esa efgyk iq:"k oxX dqy 6 efgyk ,oa iq:"k mifLFkr gq, ftuesa ojh;rk vad ,oa ’kiFk i= ds vk/kkj ij lokZf/kd es/kk vad okys vH;FkhZ 80-44 izfr’kr okys jkds’k dqekj flag vizf’kf{kr dk p;u ;w0 vkj0 dksfV esa fd;k x;kA izLrko 6 yk;k x;k fd ,l0lh0 dk ,d in fjDr gS ftlesa dksbZ Hkh izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ ugha gS blfy, vukSipkfjd ,oa u vkSipkfjd vH;fFkZ;ksa esa dqy 6 vH;FkhZ lk{kkRdkj esa mifLFkr gq, gSa ftueas vfuy dqekj ek>h lHkh vH;fFkZ;ksa esa loksZPp es/kk vad lkFk esa vukSipkfjd Hkh gS vr% budk p;u es/kk vad ds vk/kkj ij vuqlwfpr dksfV esa fd;k tkrk gSA dkmaflafyax lwph ds voyksdu ls ,oa fu;kstu bdkbZ ds }kjk ikfjr izLrkoksa ls izekf.kr gS fd vkosndx.k vFkkZr v’kksd dqekj flag ,oa dkes’oj eka>h fnukad 28-02-2009 dks dkmaflafyax ds fy, mifLFkr ugh gq, FksA tgka rd nksuksa vkosndksa dk nkok gS fd os nksuksa dkmaflafyax frfFk dks mifLFkr gq, Fks ijUrq mlds vksj ls dksbZ Hkh lk{; ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k ftlls FkksM+k Hkh izyf{kr gks fd os fnukad 28-02-2009 dks dkmaflafyax gsrq mifLFkr gq, FksA vkosnd dkes’oj eka>h dh vksj ls fnukad 23-09-2010 ,oa fnukad 15-09-2010 dks f’kdk;r i= f}rh; pj.k f’k{kd fu;kstu xzke iapk;r jkt >kaok esa cjrh xbZ vfu;ferrkvksa ds laca/k eas vk;qDr lkj.k Patna High Court CWJC No.18516 of 2013 (2) dt.29-10-2013 5 ize.My] Nijk ,oa mi fosdkl vk;qDr Nijk dks fyf[kr :i ls Hkstk gS ftlesa mYysf[kr fd;k gS fd esjk es/kk lwph esa izFke LFkku gS vkSj viuk dkmaflafyax Hkh djk;k gks ysfdu esjk uke dkVdj nwljk vH;FkhZ vfuy dqekj eka>kh dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k gs tcfd fu;kstu bdkbZ dh fnukad 28-02-2009 dh cSBd dh iqjh izfdz;k izLrqr fd;k x;k gS ftlesa fdlh fcUnq ij lansg ugha O;Dr djrk gS fd vkosnd dkes’oj eka>h dk uke dkVdj vfuy dqekj eka>h dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ,oa lk{;ksa ds foospukvksa ls izekf.kr gS fd vkosndx.k izekf.kr djus esas vlQy gks x, gSa fd os dkmaflafyax esa mifLFkr gq, FksA** does not suffer from any error either on fact or in law. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-