Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16184 of 2013 ====================================================== Arpana Kumari D/O Late Gris Prasad Mandal Resident of Village And Post-Station Mohalla, Kasba, P.S. Kasba, District - Purnea .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar Versus 2. The Member, District Teacher Employment, Appellate Authority, Purnea 3. The District Education Officer-Cum-District Programme Officer, Sarvsiksha Abhiyan, Purnea 4. The Block Education Officer, , Kasba, District - Purnea 5. The Mukhiya-Cum-Chairman, Gram Panchayat Raj Gurhi, P.S. Kasba, District - Purnea 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Gurhi, P.S. Kasba, District - Purnea 7. Hamida Khatoon Wife Of Md. Ramzan Ali Resident Of Village - Jiyanganj, P.S. Kasba, District - Purnea .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bijendra Kumar Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Amar Nath Deo, S.C. 26 Mr. P.K.Verma, A.C. to S.C. 26 For the Respondent No.7: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan , Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 5 01-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Assailing the impugned order dated 09.07.2013 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 2 / 21 Authority, Purnea (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Case No. 6 of 2013, learned counsel for the petitioner has basically concentrated on the aspect that such order of the Tribunal was bad both on fact and in law, inasmuch as, the Tribunal did not even take into account that there was an inordinate delay on the part of the respondent no. 7 in filing of complaint as with regard to any illegality in the selection and appointment of the petitioner. In this regard, he has submitted that the petitioner was appointed way back in the year 2007 and the respondent no. 7 had assailed her appointment in Appeal Case No. 6 of 2013 which would mean a delay of almost six years and therefore, the Tribunal was not even required to go into the respective merits of the petitioner vis vis respondent no. 7 and ought to have dismissed the complaint of respondent no. 7 only on the ground of inordinate delay. 3. He has further submitted that the Tribunal in fact had no jurisdiction to entertain such complaint against the appointment of petitioner, inasmuch as, her appointment 3
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 3 / 21 was made in the first phase of appointment of Panchayat Teacher for which redressal forum was only the B.D.O. in terms of Rule-18 of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules-2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 2006 Rules) as is existing on the date of appointment of the petitioner. 4. He has also assailed the order of the Tribunal on merits by suggesting that once the respondent no. 7 was not found to be present in the course of counselling her appointment having higher marks than petitioner was not permissible and possible and as such once the petitioner being the next candidate was selected and appointed in the year 2007, such appointment could not have been disturbed by the Tribunal at the instance of respondent no. 7. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner in fact has insisted that such order of the Tribunal was not implemented and therefore no right had been also vested in respondent no. 7 to be appointed in place of the 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 4 / 21 petitioner. In this regard reliance has been placed by him on an order of the Block Education Officer, Kasba accepting the joining of the petitioner to prove that she was still working on the post of Panchayat Teacher. 6. In this case a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 7, wherein, the impugned order passed by the Tribunal goes to show that he was not correct to show that the petitioner had filed complaint only in the year 2008 and in fact in this regard reliance has been placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on an earlier order passed by the Tribunal on 29.12.2009 on the complaint filed by respondent no. 7 on 09.04.2009, he has also referred to an earlier application filed by respondent no. 7 before the B.D.O. Kasba which according to her lead to earlier termination of service of the petitioner on 08.01.2008 on the basis of these two applications one filed by the respondent no. 7 before the Block Development Officer, Kasba in the year 2007 and the other before the Tribunal in the year 2009. 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 5 / 21 7. Learned counsel for respondent no. 7 has also submitted that there would be no question of any delay in assailing the appointment and continuation of the petitioner. He has also submitted that the story of respondent no. 7 being absent in course of counselling was a humbug, inasmuch as, no notice of such counselling was given to the respondent no. 7 despite her having the higher marks as also placed above the petitioner in the merit list. He has also submitted that the respondent no. 7 despite having direction of the Tribunal in the impugned order for her appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher becoming vacant on account of termination of service of the petitioner had not been complied because of the dubious role played by the Block Education Officer who wanted to protect the petitioner in the same manner in which he had even accepted the joining of the petitioner despite being no authority vested to him to intermeddle in the appointment and joining of the Panchayat Teacher. 8. When this writ application was initially placed for 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 6 / 21 admission and this Court on perusal of the two earlier orders of this Court dated 07.07.2008 passed in C.W.J.C No. 1968 of 2008 filed by the petitioner as also another order dated 14.03.2013 passed in C.W.J.C No. 2380 of 2008 filed by respondent no. 7 was prima facie satisfied that the case of respondent no. 7 was on different footing and had passed an interim order directing the Block Education Officer to explain as to under what circumstances the joining of the petitioner was accepted by him and how he had allowed the petitioner to continue in service despite the impugned order passed by the Tribunal terminating the services of the petitioner and also directing for appointment of respondent no. 7. It would be necessary to quote relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 16.09.2013 which reads as follows:- "This Court fails to understand as to when the services of the petitioner stands terminated by the impugned order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Purnea (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal), how she has been allowed to continue in service and why respondent no. 7 has not been appointed on the post deemed to have been vacated by the termination of the petitioner despite a clear direction to this effect by the Tribunal. The B.E.O., Kasba, District - Purnea appearing 7 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 7 / 21 in person, in absence of Panchayat Secretary who is said have been kidnapped, is directed to remain present with all the relevant records relating to selection and appointment of the petitioner vis a vis respondent no. 7 including the application, advertisement, merit list and the proof of counselling. Additionally, it would be obligatory on the part of the B.E.O, Kasba, District - Purnea to explain as to under what circumstances the joining of the petitioner, a Panchayat Teacher was accepted in the office of the then B.E.O and if there is any provision under the Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules-2006 giving such power to the authority to accept the joining in the Office of B.E.O. The B.E.O., Kasba district Purnea shall also be under an obligation to verify the genuineness of Annexure- 2 and also name the person who was holding the post of B.E.O. on 20.11.2007. It would be also open for the respondents to file their counter affidavit bringing on record the relevant documents but that must be done within a period of one week so that a reply can be given by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the remaining period of one week. " 9. The explanation that has come in the counter affidavit of the Block Education Officer is quite interesting. Mrs. Niva Paul, the present Block Education Officer in paragraph no. 12 of the counter affidavit has stated as follows:- to sought explanation "That while the instant case was taken up on 16.09.2013 this Hon'ble Court pleased from answering respondent that under what circumstances the joining of petitioner was accepted in the office of then B.E.O., it is humbly stated and submitted that there is no provision in appointment Rule-2006 to accept joining in the office of B.E.O. but as the appointment of petitioner was made in newly created primary school where there is neither school building nor land was available, in this situation petitioner merely informed the office of B.E.O. that 8 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 8 / 21
Legal Reasoning
15. This was in fact only done by this Court in the order dated 07.07.2008 when the petitioner had assailed her termination order dated 09.01.2008 in C.W.J.C No. 1968 of 2008 which was set aside on limited ground by 13 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 13 / 21 clearly absorbing that quashing of the order dated 09.01.2008 of the termination of service of the petitioner shall not inhibit the respondents in fresh proceeding in accordance with law. It is true that in the said order the question of jurisdiction was also conceded by the learned counsel for the State for appointment of Panchayat Teacher made by the Panchayat Unit could not have been cancelled by the Panchayat Unit and only statutory authority under Rule-18 of 2006 Rules could have terminated the services of the petitioner but then this Court does not find necessity to go into this question, inasmuch as, it is well settled that one who has power to appoint has also the power to remove. 16. In the considered opinion of this Court, the order of this Court dated 07.07.2008 passed in C.W.J.C No. 1968 of 2008 had vested with no other right to the petitioner save and except to continue in service till her appointment was subjected to any fresh proceeding. 17. It is here that one has to take into account that 14 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 14 / 21 respondent no. 7 who was the beneficiary of the order dated 09.01.2008 was not even heard, insmuch as, the writ application filed by the petitioner being C.W.J.C No. 1968 of 2008 was disposed of on the very first date i.e. 07.07.2008 on a concession of learned counsel for the State as with regard to jurisdiction of the Panchayat and therefore the petitioner cannot be blamed if she had followed the spirit of the order after it became known to her and therefore, the respondent no. 7 cannot be said to be at fault if she has followed the spirit of the order of this Court after it became known to her and moved before the Tribunal by filing her case on 09.04.2009 which was registered as case no. 283 of 2009. 18. The Tribunal, however, by its order dated 29.12.2009 despite recording everything in favour of respondent no. 7 had non suited her case on a wrong reading of the order of this Court dated 07.07.2008 passed in C.W.J.C No. 1968 of 2008 which would become manifest from the following findings recorded by the 15 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 15 / 21 Tribunal in its aforesaid order dated 29.12.2009:- "The following points have to be noted here. 1. The merit point of appellant is 60.55% and the merit point of appointed teacher Arpana Kumari is 51.66% 2. Both of them appellant Hamida Khatoon and appointed teacher, Arpana Kumari belong to I.B.C. category and female candidates 3.It is observed from the photocopy of the list of letters of counselling of the candidates dispatched under certificates of posting on 07.10.07 that the name of Hamid Khatoon has been insert at the bottom of Page no. 2 later on. This has been found on the basis of differences in the handwriting and over writing in Sl. No. of candiates. 4. Hence the statement of official that due to non submission of consent letter by appellant (Hamida Khatoon) next candidate Arpana Kumari was appointed in not true and justified. Actually no latter was issued to Hamida Khatoon on 07.10.07 under U.P.C. 5. It is also observed, that after realizing the mistake the Mukhiya and Sachive of the concerned Panchayat have cancelled the appointment of Arpana Kumari vide letter no. 81 dated 09.01.08. 6. In view of above noted facts and figures it is found that an appeal petition of Hamida Khatoon has some merits and her request is maintainable. But at the same time in view of order of Honourable Patna High Court order C.W.J.C No. 2908/2008 appellate authority is not in a position to deliver any judgment. Affected party may seek legal remedies from proper court of law. The appeal petition is dismissed." 19. It was this order of the Tribunal dated 29.12.2009 which became the subject matter of writ petition filed by respondent no. 7 being C.W.J.C No. 2380 of 2010, wherein, this Court after issuing notice to the 16 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 16 / 21 petitioner who was impleaded as respondent no. 9 and after hearing the parties had passed the following order:- "Since the earlier order, dated 07.07.2008, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1968 of 2008 was on a limited point of violation of principles of natural justice as well as the power of Mukhiya or the Panchayat Secretary to remove her, the Tribunal has obviously not understood the concluding part of the Order of the High Court, which said that this shall, however, not inhibit the respondents in any fresh proceeding in law, if so desired. In other words, the appointment of private-respondent was not absolute and it was subject to scrutiny by the Panchayat or the Tribunal constituted in this regard. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner seems to be correct that the Tribunal has committed an error by passing the order, contained in Annexure – 3 by refusing to allow her claim on the ground that the private-respondent has been restored by a judicial order of the High Court. Since the final status of the private-respondent was left open by the Court in question, therefore, the impugned order dated 29.12.2009 stands quashed, after hearing the parties, including the private-respondent, with a direction upon the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Purnea to pass a decisive order as to the status or the claim of the present petitioner, Hamida Khatoon after hearing the private- respondent, as in the opinion of this Court, the Order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 1968 of 2008 was with limited effect and not in absolute terms. Writ Application is allowed with observation as above." 20. It would therefore, become more than clear that respondent no. 7 being a better candidate in her category of Extremely Backward Category than the petitioner has ultimately been given justice by the Tribunal in the impugned order, wherein, the alleged absence of respondent no. 7 in course of counselling despite her having higher marks has been well explained. 17 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 17 / 21 To that extent, the following finding of the Tribunal as well as consequential direction given by it cannot be faulted either in fact or in law is quoted hereinbelow:- dk;kZy;] ftyk f’k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkf/kdkj] iwf.kZ;ka vkns’k la0 103 iw.kZ;ka fnukad 9@7@13 okn la0 %& 06@2013 vihydRRkZk%& gehnk [kkrqu firk@ifr%& eks0 jetku vyh irk%& xz0&ft;uxat] iks&eVdksik] Fkkuk&dlok] ftyk&iwf.kZ;ka fu;kstu bZdkbZ dk uke& xqjgh iapk;r iz[kaM dk uke& dlck vkns’k Qyd fnukad 09-07-13 vihykFkhZ gehnk [kkrqu us vihy vkosnu nk;j fd;k gS fd izkf/kdkj ds vihy la0&283@09 esa dksbZ vkns’k ikfjr ugha fd;k x;k D;ksafd ekuuih; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk ds lh-MCy-ts-lh- la0 1968@08 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us Jhefr viZ.kk dqekjh firk Lo0 fxjh’k izlkn eaMy ds fu;kstu dks oS/k djkj fn;k FkkA vihykFkhZ uq iqu% lwfpr fd;k gS fd izkf/kdkj ds mi;qZDr vihy esa ikfjr vkns’k esa lh-MCy-ts-lh- la0 2380@10 nkf[ky fd;k ftlesa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us fnukad 14-03-13 dks vkns’k ikfjr fd;k gSA mDr vkns’k ds vkyksd esa vihy nk;j dj mUgksus dgk fd xqjgh iapk;r es esajs fu;kstu dk vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tk;A lh-MCy-ts-lh- la0 2380@2010 esa ikfjr vkns’k ds vkyksd esa iqu% lquokbZ dh dkjZokbZ dh xbZA Jherh gehnk [kkrqu vkSj viZ.kk dqekjh dks ekSf[kd ,oa fyf[kr i{km j[kus dk ekSdk fn;k x;kA nksuksa us viuk i{k j[khA iapk;r lfpo us iapk;r ds vfHkys[kksa dks nkf[ky fd;kA iapk;r lsod }kjk nkf[ky vfHkys[kksa ,oa nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus ds ckn fuEu rF; lkeus vk;s& ;s ekeyk o"kZ 2006 ds iapk;r f’kZ{kd fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr gSa jksLVj fcUnw 2994 v0fi0oxZ efgyk ds in ij viZ.kk dqekjh es/kk vad 51-66 dk fu;kstu fd;k x;kA fu;kstu lfefr dh cSBd fnukad 09-01-2008 ds izLrko la0 01 esa dgk x;k gS fd xzke iapk;r xqjgh esa v0fi0oxZ efgyk dksfV us viZ.kk dqekjh dh fu;qfDr fnuakad 20-11-07 dks dh xbZA Jherh gfenk [kkrqu tks es/kk lwph esa izFke LFkku ij gS] vkifRr ntZ djk;h fd mls ;w0ih0lh0 Mkd }kjk Hsktk x;k cqykok i= ugha feyk blfy, fnukad 26-10-07 dks vafre dkmaflafyax es a Hkkx ugha ys ldhA Jhefr gehnk [kkrqu ds nkos ij f’k{kd fu;kstu lfefr ds lnL;ksa 18 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 18 / 21 }kjk takap ds dze eaa ik;k x;k fd gehnk [kkrqu dk dFku lgh izrhr gksrk gSA f’k{kd fu;kstu lfefr us gehnk [kkrqu ds nkos dks lgh ikrs gq, viZ.kk dqekjh ds fu;qfDr dks jn~n dj fn;kA fnukad 16-10-2007 dks xzke iapk;r xjgh ds izkax.k essa f’k{kd fu;ktu gsrq dkmaflafyax esa Hkkx fy;s gq;s vHfFkZ;ksa dk es/kk lwph cuk;k x;kA lcksa dks fu;kstu gsrq cqykok i= Hkstu dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;kA v0fi0oxZ efgyk ds in gsrq dqy 04 vH;FkhZ;ksa dk uke ntZ gSa gehnk [kkrqu dk uke izFke LFkku ij gSa vkSj viZ.kk dqekjh dk nwljs LFkku ij fy[kk gSA vfHkys[k dks ns[kus ls Li"V gksrk gS fd gehnk [kkrqu dk uke ckn esa tksM+k x;k gaSA izFke LFkku ij viZ.kk dqekjh ds dzekad 01 ij vksoj jkbZfVax dj 02 cuk;k x;k gSA blh izdkj vU; nks vH;fFkZ;ksa ds dzekad dks 02 ;s 03 vkSj 03 ls 04 cu;k x;k gSa ftlij vksj jkbZfVaax gSa iapk;r lsod }kjk es/kk lwph dk QksVksizfr nkf[ky fd;k x;k gSa blds vuqlkj gehnk [kkrqu dzekad 133 ij ntZ gS ,oa bldk es/k vad 60-55 gSa viZ.k dqekjh dk uke dzekad 185 es/kk vad 52-44 ntZ gSa fnukad 17-10-07 dks vH;fFkZ;ksa dks ;w-ih-lh- }kjk i= Hkstk x;kA ftleas gehnk [kkrqu dk uke dzekad 29 ij ntZ gSa ijUrq gehnk [kkrqu dk uke ckn esa ntZ fd;k x;k gSa gehnk [kkrqu dk uke nwljs gLrfyfi esa gSa vkSj gehnk [kkrqu ds ckn ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dk uke gS mu lcksa ds dzekad dks vksoj jkbZfVax dj cnyk x;k gSa Li"V gS fd gehnk [kkrqu dk uke dkmaflafyax gsrq Hksts x;s i=ksa dh lwph esa Hkh iwoZ esa ugha Fkk ftls ckn esa tksM+k x;k gSA fu"d"kZ& Jhefr gehnk [kkrqu dks dkmaflafyax gsrq lqpuk ugha nh xbZA v0fi0oxZ efgyk dksfV esa budk uke es/kk lwph esa izFke LFkku ij ckn esa tksM+k x;k gSa Jhefr gehnk [kkrqu dk nkok lgh izrhr gksrk gSA vkns’k& 1- viZ.kk dqekjh firk fxjh’k izlkn eaMy dk fu;kstu jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA 2- Jhefr gehnk [kkrqu ifr eks0 jetku vyh dk vihy Lohd‘r fd;k tkrk gSA fu;kstu bdkbZ dks funsZ’k fn;k tkrk gS fd Jhefr gehnk [kkrqu dk dkmaflafyax dj fu;kstu i= fuxZr djsaA g0@& vLi"V 9@7@13 …gluSu vkyke‰ ftyk f’k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkf/kdkj] iwf.kZ;kaA Kkikad 103@ izkf/kdkj] iwf.kZ;ka fnukad 9@7@13** (underlining for emphasis) 21. It would thus become clear from the reading of the aforementioned impugned order of the Tribunal that 19 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 19 / 21 there was clear interpolation in the records for appointing the petitioner and removing the respondent no. 7 from the zone of consideration. There is also no dispute that even in the documents showing letter of counselling the name of respondent no. 7 was sought to be inserted which had been very meticulously observed and found by the Tribunal in its order. 22. Thus there would be no difficulty in holding that the appointment of the petitioner was vitiated by fraud as well as interpolation of records and in fact respondent no. 7 being the first in the merit list having 60.55 per cent marks was sought to be eliminated after only appointing the petitioner who was having only 52.44 to be marks and 52 names below in the merit list. 23. This Court, therefore, is fully satisfied that no error has been committed by the Tribunal in passing the order for termination of service of the petitioner and directing the Panchayat Unit to appoint respondent no. 7 in place of the petitioner. As noted above it is only at the 20 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 20 / 21 interference of this Court that the appointment and joining of respondent no. 7 has been accepted on 16.09.2013 after six years when she ought to have been appointed on the basis of her being first in the panel in the Extremely Backward Category. 24. This Court in exercise of its power under Article-226 of Constitution of India is therefore, not prepared to perpetuate the illegality which was committed earlier in appointing and continuing the petitioner in service. 25. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioner on the observation of the Division bench in the L.P.A No. 1867 of 2012, is wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, what was said in that case as with regard to delay cannot be made applicable in the facts of this case because the respondent no. 7 all along proceeding for her appointment the day from which the petitioner was appointed as has been explained above. 26. Thus on an over all consideration of the matter, 21 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 21 / 21 this Court will have no hesitation in holding that the very appointment of the petitioner was band and has been rightly set aside by the Tribunal in the impugned order with consequential direction to appoint respondent no. 7 who was the best candidate for her category in the merit list and yet was kept deprived of the post of Panchayat Teacher for six years only on account of the fraud committed by the appointing authority. 27. That being so, this writ application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed. Sujit/Ranjan- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)
Arguments
she was going to join her school, that application was only received in the office of B.E.O, by the office staff, joining was not accepted, at that time (20.11.2007) Smt. Hansi Rani Dutta was holding the post of B.E.O. , Kasba." 10. It would thus become clear that the petitioner's initial appointment and joining was itself shrouded in mystery and was an act of personal favour bestowed to her, inasmuch as, it has now been admitted by the Block Education Officer that one Hansi Rani Dutta who was holding the post of Block Education Officer had merely received joining report of the petitioner though she was not authorized to do so. The role of the Block Education Officer therefore, becomes more apparent because ultimately the order of the Tribunal for appointing respondent no. 7 could only be complied on 16.09.2013 only when this Court had asked for explanation in this writ application which was filed on 20.08.2013. Let it be noted that the order of the Tribunal was passed on 09.07.2013 and had this Court not involved, the petitioner could have been despite an order of Tribunal for 9 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 9 / 21 termination of her service could have continued at the expense of respondent no. 7 who was actually directed by the Tribunal to be appointed in place of the petitioner. 11. It is in this background that this Court will go to the different submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Firstly, there would be no question of delay in this case which would find the claim of respondent no. 7. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had moved before the Tribunal after six years of the appointment of the petitioner that respondent no. 7 is absolutely incorrect. The petitioner had firstly moved the competent authority, namely, the Block Development Officer, Kasba immediately after appointment of the petitioner on 20.11.2007 and in fact her order of termination of service passed by the Mukhiya and the Panchayat Secretary dated 09.01.2008 will leave nothing for speculation that the appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on account of ignoring better claim of respondent no. 7. This would become more clear 10 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 10 / 21 from the reading of the order of termination of service of the petitioner on 09.01.2008 (Annexure-10) :- ^^dk;kZy; xzke iapk;r jktxqjgh i=kaad 82 fnukad 09-01-2008 izsf"kr& viZ.kk dqekjh firk fxfj’k izlkn eaMy] xzke&LVs’ku eksgYyk dVok] iwf.kZ;ka fo"k;& iapk;r f’k{kd fu;qfDr jn~n djus ds laca/k esaA mijksDr fo"k; ds vkyksd esa lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd Jhefr gehnk [kkrqu ifr vfeLy gd xzke&ft;xat iks0 eVdksik Fkkuk dlok ds }kjk vkosnu i= ;g fn;k x;k gS fd iapk;r f’k{kd fu;qfDr esa vfu;ferrk cjrrs gq, esjs vf/kd ekdZ jgus ds ckotwn eq>s fu;qfDr ugha dj vad izkIr djus okys vH;FkhZ dh fu;qfDr dj yh xbZ gSA izfr vkosnu i= ds vkyksd esa la/kkfjr es/kk lwph ,oa izFke dkmaflafyax iath ds voyksdu ds i’pkr tkudkjh izkIr gqbZ fd iapk;r f’k{kd fu;qfDr esa v0fi0 oxZ efgyk dksfV ls gehnk [kkrqu ifr vfeLy gd dks 60-55% ,oa vkHkk dqekjh ] firk NVq egrks dk 56-66% ,oa ’khyk jkuh ifr jke th Bkdqj dks 56-66% ds vUrxZr iapk;r f’k{kd fu;kstu lfefr }kjk Jhefr viZ.kk dqekjh dh fu;qfDr 51-55% vad ij dj nh xbZA tcfd vf/kd izfr’kr 60- 55% gehnk [kkrqu dh gS ftlls gh fu;qfDr fd;k tkuk FkkA gehnk [kkrqu }kjk vafre dkmUflafyax vuqiLFkr jgus ds dkj.k gh vkidh fu;qfDr dh xbZ FkhA ijUrq fu;ekuqlkj vzxj dksbZ vkosfndk ,d ckj dh dkmUflafax esa ;fn mifLFkr gksrh gS vkSj vad mldk vf/kd aA bl dze esa gS rks ,slh fLFkfr eaas mlls gh fu;qfDr fd;k tkuk gS Jherh gehnk [kkrqu dk vad lcls vf/kd gSaA vr% mijksDr ifjis{k ds vkyksd esa Jhefr gehnk [kkrqu ds vkosnu i= la/kkfjr es/kk lwph ,oa dkmUflafyax iath ds vk/kkj ij rRdkfyd izHkko ls vkidh fu;qfDr jn~n dh tkrh gSA g0@&vLi"V g0@& vgenh ckuks i0 lfpo eqf[k;k xzke iapk;r xqwjgh xzke iapk;r xjghA Kkikad 81 fnukad 9-1-08** (underlining for emphasis) 12. From the reading of the underlined portion of the aforesaid order of termination of service of the petitioner dated 09.01.2008, it would be clear that such appointment of the petitioner was cancelled on the 11 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 11 / 21 complaint of respondent no. 7 and therefore, the plea of delay of six years raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is absolutely incorrect. Respondent no. 7 was conscious of her cause and in fact became eligible for appointment in the year 2008 i.e. one and a half months of the appointment of the petitioner to be computed on the basis of her so called appointment on 20.11.2007. Let it be noted that as a matter of fact, the petitioner had not even started regular teaching because it was said that she was on 30 days training in Block Resource Centre, Kasba and had been relieved to join her post of Panchayat Teacher by the order of Block Education Extension Officer,Kasba contained in Memo No. 19 dated 09.01.2008 w.e.f., 12.01.2008. 13. Thus, the petitioner who did not work even for a single day in the School as a teacher and in fact she was undergoing training before joining her post could not have claimed to have acquired any right on the post of Panchayat Teacher. 12 Patna High Court CWJC No.16184 of 2013 (5) dt.01-10-2013 12 / 21 14. It is here, that the plea of acceptance of joining of the petitioner at the instance of Block Education Officer on 20.11.2007 becomes more than visible. As noted above, the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher for which the joining was to be accepted by the Panchayat Secretary or in the concerned School by the Headmaster. In the case of the petitioner, it was not done so and the order of the Block Education Officer was invented who surprisingly also had sent the petitioner on training. Thus, there was no error in the order of termination of the service of the petitioner dated 09.01.2008 save and except that since she has been issued appointment letter on 20.11.2007, her services could not have been terminated without giving her a show cause notice and/or opportunity of hearing.