Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20975 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Nibha Kumari Daughter Of Lalbabu Prasad Shrivastava, Wife Of Ashok Kumar Of Village- Koraiya, Post- Adapur, District- East Champaran .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector, East Champaran At Motihari 3. The District Education Officer, East Champaran, Motihari 4. The Block Education Officer-Cum-Secretary, Block Selection Committee, Null Chhauradano Block, East Champaran 5. The Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, District- West Champaran 6. Kiran Kumari Daughter Of Deonandan Sharma Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran 7. Seema Kumari Daughter Of Munna Kumar Kudarkat Ramgarhwa, District- East Champaran .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Dilip Kumar Tondon, Adv. For the State : Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh GA-8 & Mr. Rajiv Kumar Singh, AC to GA-8 For private respondents : Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 31-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application:- the “for order quashing dated 06.06.2012 passed by respondent no. 5 in case No. 793/2011 as contained in annexure-I and further be pleased to appoint the petitioner on the post of Block Teacher in place of Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 who have secured less percentage of marks the Intermediate Examination as well as Respondent Nos. 6 and 7 have illegally been given 20% waitage academic qualification (Public Education Experience).” the petitioner different towards than in to
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2012 (2) dt.31-10-2013 2 Assailing the impugned order dated 06.06.2012 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, West Champaran (hereinafter referred to as the
Legal Reasoning
Tribunal) dated 06.06.2012, Mr. D.K. Tandon, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has miserably failed to take into account the specific plea which were raised on behalf of the petitioner while questioning the appointment of respondent nos. 6 and 7. In this regard, he has also referred to the documents contained in Annexure-2 series which were obtained by the petitioner under the Right to Information Act. According to Mr. Tandon those document will fully go to show that both the private respondent nos. 6 and 7 were given 10 and 20 additional weightage points on the basis of forged certificate, inasmuch as, the period in which they are shown to be working as Lok Shikshak one of them namely, Kiran Kumari, respondent no. 6 was also undergoing regular intermediate course from Shiv Shankar Nawal Kishori Mahavidyalaya in the session 2003-2005 whereas respondent no. 7, Seema Kumari was regular student of Jai Mangal Anupa Champaran Mahila Intermediate Mahavidyalaya in the 2005-2007 session. In this regard he Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2012 (2) dt.31-10-2013 3 has also invited attention of this Court to paragraph no. 8 of this writ application which for the sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow:- "That it is submitted that the petitioner filed written argument also and in paragraph-15 she has specifically made an averment and questioned regarding the genuineness of the certificate of public education of respondent no. 6 and 7 but this aspect of the case was not considered/verified by the respondent-tribunal and illegally rejected the case of the petitioner." Mr. Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of private respondent no. 7 on the other hand has submitted that all those facts which have been stated before this Court were not placed before the Tribunal. In this regard he has also referred to the date of impugned order passed by the Tribunal being 06.06.2012 and the documents which were obtained by the petitioner under Right to Information Act or otherwise were after 06.06.2012. He has also accordingly explained that paragraph no. 8 of the writ petition will not come to the rescue of the petitioner because whatever could have been included by the petitioner in the written argument could not have been said about those documents contained in Annexure-2 series because the written arguments were filed on behalf of the petitioner prior Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2012 (2) dt.31-10-2013 4 to the order of the Tribunal. This Court would find that private respondents were appointed in the year-2008. An application was however filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal in the year 2011 and not only that the petitioner had approached the Tribunal at a wholly belated stage but even her case was limited to selection and appointment on the post of Prakhand Teacher in Unreserved Female Category. Whatever marks were therefore mentioned in the merit list as with regard to the petitioner vis a vis private respondents were supposed to be well known to the petitioner, wherein, the private respondents admittedly were shown to have given 20 weightage points. The petitioner, however, did not assail award of 20 points to the private respondents at that point of time. Inasmuch as, it is the case of the petitioner that her name was included in the merit list her remaining silent without even filing objection to award of 20 points/marks to the Respondent nos. 6 and 7 for their experience in course of finalization of the merit list, the same would debar the petitioner to raise question for the first time in this writ petition. Thus if the Rules relating to appointment on the post Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2012 (2) dt.31-10-2013 5 of Prakhand /Panchayat Teacher itself envisage the preparation of draft merit list, filing of objections and thereafter finalization of the merit list, admittedly, the petitioner did not even raise before the Tribunal that she had objected to the award of 20 weightage points to the private respondents by filing objection at the time of preparation of the merit list. As a matter of fact when the documents itself were collected by the petitioner after the order of the Tribunal as would be apparent from the perusal of Annexure-2 series in the date of, 03.10.2012, 03.07.2012, 21.06.2012 23.07.2012 and 30.07.2012, being pages 36 to 39 of this writ application, nothing would be left for speculation that it is only for the purposes of filing of this writ application that these documents were collected and were never brought to the notice of the Tribunal. This Court in exercise of its power under Article-226/227 of the Constitution of India cannot allow a new document to be taken into consideration for assailing the order of the Tribunal on the basis of such facts which was never placed before the Tribunal. In that view of the matter, the claim of the petitioner as against respondent nos. 6 and 7 of their appointment Patna High Court CWJC No.20975 of 2012 (2) dt.31-10-2013 6 being based on forged document or manipulated information cannot be entertained by this Court. Nothing said in this order, however, will come in the way of the petitioner to seek a declaration from the competent Civil Court as with regard to such forgery/illegality to have been committed by respondent nos. 6 and 7 if a civil suit is filed by the petitioner impleading all the respondents including respondent nos. 6 and 7 by way of seeking a declaration that their experience certificate as a Lok Shikshak was forged/illegal and in the event a declaration to this effect is given by the competent Civil Court the petitioner will have the liberty to move before the competent authority for her appointment. Subject to the aforementioned observation, this application is dismissed. Ranjan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)