Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19340 of 2013 ====================================================== Md. Salauddin, S/o Md. Sanaullah, r/o village Samarahia, P.S. Chauradano District East Champaran. Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1.The State Of Bihar. 2.The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3.The District Magistrate, East Champaran. 4.The District Programme Officer, East Champaran. 5.Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, East Champaran. 6.The Block Development Officer, Turkaulia. 7.Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Raghunathpur, Block Turkaulia, East Champaran. 8.Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Raghunathpur, Block Turkaulia, East Champaran. 9.Ziyaur Rahman, s/o Ataur Rahman, r/o Village Mahua, P.S. Chiraiya, District East Champaran. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Madhurendra Kumar, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Girija Shankar Prasad G.P-1 & Mr. Umesh Kumar AC to GP-1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 26-11-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Assailing the impugned order dated 13.3.2013 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) in Appeal Case no. 810 of 2011, learned counsel for the petitioner has basically concentrated on the aspect that the finding arrived by the Tribunal that the petitioner had not appeared in the counselling held on 28.02.2009 or even on 29.12.2010 suffers from an error of record, inasmuch as, the petitioner had led Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 2 unimpeachable evidence to show that he was present in the course of counselling held on 28.02.2009. In this regard, he has submitted that the private respondent no. 9, Ziyaur Rahman in fact had secured lesser marks to the petitioner and as such his being favoured for appointment on 30.12.2010 being itself bad, the Tribunal had to cancel the appointment of private respondent no. 9, Ziyaur Rahman and issue a direction for appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the Tribunal had gone into all possible facets and had held that the evidence lead by the petitioner for establishing that he had appeared in course of counselling was found to be forged. He has further submitted that even though the date of subsequent counselling notified by the Principal Secretary of the Education Department and published in the newspaper but the petitioner did not appear even in course of that counselling and therefore, it has to be essentially held that the petitioner had raised a wholly belated challenge to the appointment of private respondent no. 9, Ziyaur Rahman. In the considered opinion of this Court when there is no dispute that the petitioner had higher marks and therefore, his name had to rank above private respondent no. 9, Ziyaur
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 3 Rahman in the merit list it would really make the whole issue irrelevant as to whether the petitioner had appeared in counselling on 28.02.2009. Let it be noted that for this purpose the petitioner had claimed that one Ashok Hazra the then Panchayat Secretary had certified as with regard to the presence of the petitioner in course of counselling held on 28.02.2009. The Tribunal however in fact had gone into this aspect at great length by comparing the alleged signature of Ashok Hazra with the admitted signature procured from him by the Tribunal and having compared the two signatures of Ashok Hazra it came to the finding that the signature of Ashok Hazra taken before the Tribunal did not at all tally with the one which was alleged on the document produced by the petitioner. The Tribunal in this regard having examined Ashok Hazra in person who had appeared before the Tribunal has gone to record as follows:- ^^vr% izLrqr okn esa eq[; fcUnw ;g gS fd D;k vihydRRkkZ fnukad 28-02-2009 dks dkWmflafyax es mifLFkr gksdj dkWmflafyax djk;s Fks vFkok ugh\ 5- bl lanHkZ es iapk;r fu;kstu lfefr ds vfHkys[k voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd fnukad 28-02-2009 ds tks dkWmflafyac iath gS] mlds vuqlkj flQZ 18 vH;FkhZ;ksa dk gh dkWmflafyax gqvk gS] ftudk gLrk{kj Hkh dkWmflafyax iath ij ntZ gSA mDr dkWmflafyax iath ds voyksdu ls Li"V gS fd izfrokjh la0&2 dk uke dzekad 7 ij ntZ gS rFkk mudk gLrk{kj Hkh gSA mDr dkWmflafyax iath esa Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 4 vihydRrkZ dk u rks uke ntZ gS vkSj ugha mudk gLrk{kj gSa blfy, dkWmflafyaa iath ds vk/kkj ij vihydRRkZk dk ;g dFku fd mUgksaus dkWmflafyax esa Hkkx fy;k Fkk xyr fln~/k gks tkrk gSA 6- nwljh ckr ;g gS fd vfHkys[k voyksdu ls ;g Hkh Li"V gS fd fnukad 28-02-2009 dks dkWmflafyax ds mijkar dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr vH;fFkZ;ka dk iwu% es/kk lwph cuk;k x;k] tks Hkh flQZ 18 vH;fFkZ;ksa dk gh gSa ftlesa dzekad&2 ij izfroknh la0&2 dk uke ntZ gSA ysfdu vihydRrkZ dk uke vafdr ugha gSA vr% bl vk/kkj ij Hkh vihydRrkZ dks fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax eas mifLFkr rFkk Hkkx ysuk fln~/k ugha gks ikrk gSa vkSj mudk rF; ughas ekuk tk ldrk gSA 7- bl lanHkZ es vihydRrkZ us dkWmflafyax esa Hkkx ysus dk izek.k i= dh Nk;kizfr nkf[ky fd;k gS ftlij v’kksd gktjk dk gLrk{kj dgk tkrk gSA ;g Lohd‘r rF; gS fd v’kkd gtjk iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] rqjdkSfy;k ds }kjk iapk;r lfpo ds vHkko esa dkWmflafyax djkus ds fy, izfrfu;qDr fd;s x;s FksA izfroknh la0&2 rFkk iapk;r fu;kstu lfefr dk dFku gS fd v’kksd gtjk dk dkWmflafyax esa lfEEfyr gksus ds izek.k i= ij tks gLrk{kj gS og xyr ,oa cuk;k gqvk gSA bl lanHkZ esa vihydRRkZk ds vkosnu ij gh mDr v’kksd gtjk dk vihyh; izfk/kdkj ds le{k fnukad 30-08- 2012 dks viuk izfrosnu nsus dk vkns’k gqvk Fkk] ysfdu mDr frfFk dks gh mDr v’kksd dqekj gtjk vihyh; izkf/kdkj ds le{k mifLFkr gq;s vkSj ekSf[kd :i ls ;g dgs fd dkWmflafyax djkus ds izek.k i= ds gLrk{kj dks lgh crk;kA izkf/kdkj }kjk fnukad 30-08-2012 ds vkns’k Qyd ij tks okn la0&679@2010 esa yxk gqvk gS] ekftZu es a v’kksd gtjk, dk gLrk{kj cjk;k x;k gSa vkns’k Qyd ij tks v’kksd gtjk dk gLrk{kj gS] og vihydRrkZ ds dkWmflafyax ds izek.k i= ij ds muds gLrk{kj ls dkQh fHkUu gS] vr% nksuksa ds gLrk{kjksa ds voyksdu ls rFkk feyku ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij vkrk gwW fd fnukad 30-08-2012 ds vkns’k Qyd ij fd;s x;s gLrk{kj ls dkQh fHkUu ,oa vyx gSa blfy, vihydRrkZ ds dkWmflafyax ds izek.k i= ij v’kksd gtjk ds gLrk{kj dks eSa lgh Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 5 ugha ekurk gwWA blls ;g fln~/k gksrk gS fd dkWmflafyax ds izek.k i= ij v’kksd gtjk dk gLrk{kj cuk;k gqvk gSA nqljh ckr ;g gS fd v’kksd gtjk us bl laca/k esa viuk izfrosnu ugha fn;k gSA vkSj ekSf[kd :i ls Hkh fnukad 30-08-2012 dks vihyh; izkf/kdkj ds le{k ;g ugha dgk gS rFkk dkWmflafyax iath ij ds vius gLrk{kj dks vLohdkj ugha fd;k gSA blfy, dkWmflafyax iath ij v’kksd gtjk ds gLrk{kj dks lgh ekuk tkrk gS ,slh fLFkfr esa ;g ,d fojks/kkHkkl gks tkrk gSa D;ksafd v’kksd gtjk iz/kku f’k{kd ftudk dkWmflafyax iath ij gLrk{kj ugha gS rks muds }kjk vihydRrkZ dks dkWmflafyax esa lfEEfyr gksus dk izek.k i= lgh dSls ekuk tk ldrk gSA 8- rhljh ckr ;g gS fd vihydRrkZ ds rjg gh vH;FkhZ eks0 ’kkfgn ,dcky] rFkk ique dqekjh us Hkh j?kqukFkiqj iapk;r lfefr ds fo:n~/k vihyh; izkf/kdkj esa okn nkf[ky fd;k gS ftldk okn la0&679@2010 gSA mDr okn ds vihydRrkZ ique dqekjh rFkk ’kkfgn ,dcky us Hkh dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksus ds ckr dgh Fkh vkSj dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkfr dk izek.k i= v’kksd gtjk ds gLrk{kj esa gh nkf[ky fd;k gS] tcfd dkWmflafyax iath esa mijksDr nksuksa vH;fFkZ;ksa dk uke ugha gSA mudk dkWmflafyax dk izek.k i= ij tks v’kksd gtjk dk gLrk{kj gS og Hkh v’kksd gtjk }kjk fnukad 30-08- 2012 ds vkns’k Qyd ij fd;s x;s gLrk{kj ls fHkUu gSa rFkk ique dqekjh }kjk okn ds fu.kZ; ds iwoZ gh viuk okn fnukad 28-11-2011 dks okil ys fy;k x;k gSA vkSj ml vk/kkj ij ique dqekjh dk okn fnukad 28-11-2011 dks [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA mlh rjg ml okn eas eks0 ’kkfgn ,dcky tks izf’kf{kr dksfV ds vH;FkhZ gS us izLrqr okn ds izfroknh la0&2 ds fo:n~/k okn nkf[ky fd;k gSA vkSj ftles a Hkh fnukad 12-03-2013 dks gh fu.kZ; ds fy;s frfFk fu’fpr Fkh ysfdu fu.kZ; ds iwoZ gh fnukad 12-03-2013 dks ’kkfgn ,dcky Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj ’kiFk i= ds lkFk ,d vkosnu viuk okn okil djus ds fy, nsrs gSA ftl vk/kkj ij fnukad 12-03-2013 dks mudk okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSa bu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij vkrk gwW fd oLrqr% ique dqekjh ;k Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 6 ’kkfgn ,dcky rFkk vihydRrkZ eks0 lykmn~nhu fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksdj Hkkx ugha fy;s Fks vkSj buyksxksa us xyr gLrk{kj ls dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkfr dk izek.k i= fn;k gs vkSj v’kksd gtjk dks ncko esa yksdj izkf/kdkj ds le{k v’kksd gtjk us gLrk{kj dks lgh crk;k gSa D;ks afd ’kkfgn ,dcky tks okn la0&679@10 ds vihydRrkZ Fks] vkSj tks izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ Fks vxj os oLrqr% 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksrs rks fu;e ds vuqwlkj loZizFke vukjf{kr mnwZ dksfV ij mudk gh fu;kstu fd;k tkrkA mlds okn gh vizf’kf{kr vH;Fkhz ij fopkj djus dk fu;e gSa ysfdu fu.kZ; ds vafre le; esa ’kkfgn ,dckn }kjk vius okn dks okil ysuk rFkk ml okn ds vU; vihydRrkZ }kjk Hkh okn okil ysuk esjs fopkj ls bl rF; dk leFkZu djrk gS fd os yksx rFkk vihydRrkZ eks0 lykmn~nhu fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax eas Hkkx ugha fy;s FksA** In fact the Tribunal had also gone into the issue of delay on the part of the petitioner in moving before the Tribunal, inasmuch as, even after accepting the case of the petitioner that he had appeared in counselling held on 28.02.2009 it had found the delay of at least two years in filinig of his case to be wholly unexplained. Paragraph no. 9 of the judgment of the Tribunal therefore reading as follows:- ^^9- vfHkys[k voyksdu ls ;g Hkh rF; vk;k gS fd fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax ds i’pkr iapk;r fu;kstu lfefr us dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr vH;fFkZ;ka dk es/kk lwph cuk;k gS ftlesa Hkh vihydRrkZ dk uke ugha gSa vxj oLrqr% vihydRrkZ dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksrs rks dkWmflafyax ds ckn cuk;s x;s es/kk lwph esa mudk uke ugha gksus ijs mUgas rqjar vkiRrh vkosnu nkf[ky djuk pkfg, FkkA tks ugha fd;k x;ka vkSj ,d o"kZ ds ckn tc Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 7 fu;kstu gks x;k rc vkiRrh vkosnu nkf[ky fd;kA ;g rF; fln~/k djrk gS fd vihydRrkZ fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksdj Hkkx ugha fy;s FksA** can have no exception on fact and in law.
Decision
In view of the above, the ultimate conclusion arrived by the Tribunal in paragraph nos. 10 and 11 reading as follows:- ^^10- vr% mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij vkrk gWw fd vihydRrkZ fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksdj Hkkx ugh fy;s FksA ,slh fLFkfr esa vihydRrkZ dk fu;kstu ugha gks ldrk gS ;|fi mUgsa vf/kd vad gh D;ksa u gks bl laca/k esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us vius QSlyk ih0,y0ts0vkj0 2010 …1‰ ist 49 esa Li"V :i ls dgk gS fd dkWmflafyax esa Hkkx ugha ysus ij vf/kd es/kk vad gksus okys dk fu;kstu ugha gksuk fu;ekuqdqy gSa vkSj bls vfuferrk ugha ekuk tk ldrk gSA vkSj bl vk/kkj ij de es/kk vad okys vH;FkhZ ds fu;kstu dks jn~n ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA ;|fi vihydRrkZ dk es/kk vad vf/kd gS fQj Hkh fnukd 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax eas Hkkx ughs fy;s bl dkj.k muls de es/kk vad okys vH;FkhZ izfroknh la0&2 dk iapk;r f’k{kd ds in ij fu;kstu gqvkA tks fu;e vuqdqy rFkk lgh ,oa ekU; gSa vkSj de es/kk vad ds vk/kkj ij budk fu;kstu jn~n ugha fd;k tk ldrk gSA 11- nqljk rF; ;g gS fd f’k{kk foHkkx us izsl foKfIr ds }kjk ;g lwpuk fn;k Fkk f}rh; izkjafHkd f’k{kd fu;kstu esa ftu fu;kstu bZdkbZ;ksa }kjk 09-08-2010 ls ysdj 14-08-2010 rd fd frfFk esa fu;kstu ugha fd;k x;k mu bZdkbZ;ksa }kjk iapk;r f’k{kd ds fy;s fnukad 29-12-2010 ,oa 30-12-2010 dks es/kk lwph ls vH;FkhZ;ksa dk dkWmflafyax dj fu;k;stu i= nsus gsrw frfFk dks izdkf’kr fd;k x;k FkkA vr% vxj vihdRrkZ 29-12-2010 dks Hkh fu;kstu lfefr ds le{k mifLFkr gksdu dkWmflafyax djkrs rks muds nkok dks ns[kk tk ldrk FkkA ysfdu mDr frfFk dks Hkh vihydRrkZ fu;kstu lfefr ds le{k mifLFkr ugha gq;s tcfd izfroknh la0&2 vU; fu;ksftr vH;FkhZ mDr Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 8 frfFk dks mifLFkr gksdj viuk lgefr i= fu;kstu lfefr dks fn[kyk;s FksA ftl vk/kkj ij fu;kstu i= fn;k x;kA mDr frfFk dks lHkh ikap iapk;r f’k{kdksa dks fu;kstu i= fn;k x;kA ftleas izfroknh la0&2 dk Hkh gSa sA vr% bl vk/kkj ij Hkh vihydRrkZ dk fu;kstu dk nkok ughs curk gSA** also does not suffer from any error on fact or in law and thus the same can not be interfered by this Court. Before parting with this Court must also make it clear that the petitioner was not the best candidate and in fact there were other persons having higher marks than him as also there was a person who was having the teacher's training qualification namely Shahid Iqbal and all of them had in fact also taken similar ground before the Tribunal in their respective cases that they had appeared in the counselling held on 28.02.2009 but none of them was able to establish it and in fact had withdrawn their cases. Thus the petitioner could not have got the relief of his own appointment because in that event even when the appointment of private respondent no. 9, Ziyaur Rahman could be found to be bad, the best candidate had to be appointed which as noted above was Shahid Iqbal about whom the Tribunal had recorded the following finding:- ^^8- rhljh ckr ;g gS fd vihydRrkZ ds rjg gh vH;FkhZ eks0 ’kkfgn ,dcky] rFkk ique dqekjh us Hkh j?kqukFkiqj iapk;r lfefr ds fo:n~/k vihyh; izkf/kdkj esa okn nkf[ky fd;k gS ftldk okn la0&679@2010 gSA mDr okn ds vihydRrkZ ique dqekjh rFkk Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 9 ’kkfgn ,dcky us Hkh dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksus ds ckr dgh Fkh vkSj dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkfr dk izek.k i= v’kksd gtjk ds gLrk{kj esa gh nkf[ky fd;k gS] tcfd dkWmflafyax iath esa mijksDr nksuksa vH;fFkZ;ksa dk uke ugha gSA mudk dkWmflafyax dk izek.k i= ij tks v’kksd gtjk dk gLrk{kj gS og Hkh v’kksd gtjk }kjk fnukad 30-08- 2012 ds vkns’k Qyd ij fd;s x;s gLrk{kj ls fHkUu gSa rFkk ique dqekjh }kjk okn ds fu.kZ; ds iwoZ gh viuk okn fnukad 28-11-2011 dks okil ys fy;k x;k gSA vkSj ml vk/kkj ij ique dqekjh dk okn fnukad 28-11-2011 dks [kkfjt dj fn;k x;kA mlh rjg ml okn eas eks0 ’kkfgn ,dcky tks izf’kf{kr dksfV ds vH;FkhZ gS us izLrqr okn ds izfroknh la0&2 ds fo:n~/k okn nkf[ky fd;k gSA vkSj ftles a Hkh fnukad 12-03-2013 dks gh fu.kZ; ds fy;s frfFk fu’fpr Fkh ysfdu fu.kZ; ds iwoZ gh fnukad 12-03-2013 dks ’kkfgn ,dcky Lo;a mifLFkr gksdj ’kiFk i= ds lkFk ,d vkosnu viuk okn okil djus ds fy, nsrs gSA ftl vk/kkj ij fnukad 12-03-2013 dks mudk okn [kkfjt fd;k x;k gSa bu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij vkrk gwW fd oLrqr% ique dqekjh ;k ’kkfgn ,dcky rFkk vihydRrkZ eks0 lykmn~nhu fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksdj Hkkx ugha fy;s Fks vkSj buyksxksa us xyr gLrk{kj ls dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkfr dk izek.k i= fn;k gs vkSj v’kksd gtjk dks ncko esa yksdj izkf/kdkj ds le{k v’kksd gtjk us gLrk{kj dks lgh crk;k gSa D;ks afd ’kkfgn ,dcky tks okn la0&679@10 ds vihydRrkZ Fks] vkSj tks izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ Fks vxj os oLrqr% 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax esa mifLFkr gksrs rks fu;e ds vuqwlkj loZizFke vukjf{kr mnwZ dksfV ij mudk gh fu;kstu fd;k tkrkA mlds okn gh vizf’kf{kr vH;Fkhz ij fopkj djus dk fu;e gSa ysfdu fu.kZ; ds vafre le; esa ’kkfgn ,dckn }kjk vius okn dks okil ysuk rFkk ml okn ds vU; vihydRrkZ }kjk Hkh okn okil ysuk esjs fopkj ls bl rF; dk leFkZu djrk gS fd os yksx rFkk vihydRrkZ eks0 lykmn~nhu fnukad 28-02-2009 ds dkWmflafyax eas Hkkx ugha fy;s FksA** Patna High Court CWJC No.19340 of 2013 (2) dt.26-11-2013 10 Thus on an overall analysis of the order of the Tribunal, this Court does not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)