Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18457 of 2012 ====================================================== Ira Kumari W/O Sri Subodh Kumar Singh R/O Village- Lai, Post- Lai, District- Lakhisarai, At Present Residing At Mohalla- Kagazi, Near Purani Jail Road, P.O.- Sohsarai, P.S.- Sohsarai, District- Nalanda .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principle Secretary Education Department, Government Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner And Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Magadh University, Bodh Gaya Through The Vice Chancellor Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 4. The Registrar, Magadh University, Bodh Gaya 5. The District Education Officer, Lakhisarai 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Lakhisarai 7. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Lakhisarai, District- Lakhisarai .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Vikash Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Neeraj Nandan Gp20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 06-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Prakhand
Legal Reasoning
teacher in the first transaction of the year 2006. When she filed her such application her training certificate was sought to be verified by the Block Education Extension Officer who had asked the petitioner to furnish proof with regard to recognition of the institution from which she had passed such training examination. It is on record that when the petitioner was asked to do so she did not file any proof and instead moved this Court by filing a writ application, C.W.J.C.No. 5528/2007. It is again a matter of record Patna High Court CWJC No.18457 of 2012 (2) dt.06-08-2013 2 that while the writ application had remained pending the first transaction of appointment on the post of Panchayat teacher came to be closed in the year 2007 itself, whereafter the second transaction was started with new Government circular and new schedules. All the vacancies which had remained unfilled were made subject matter of new transaction. Thus, when the writ application of the petitioner was taken up on 27.10.2010 and this Court passed an order directing the Tribunal to decide the matter as with regard to claim of the petitioner for appointment and validity of her qualification the Tribunal in the impugned order has gone to hold that though the petitioner had a valid qualification of B.Ed. but then no direction could be issued by the Tribunal as on 22.6.2012 in view of the fact that the post on which the petitioner was sought to be considered had already been made subject matter of fresh consideration in the second transaction and had already been filled up.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner has, however, assailed the impugned order of the Tribunal by taking a plea that once the petitioner’s qualification was found to be valid the Tribunal was bound to issue the consequential order for appointment of the petitioner. In this regard he has also placed reliance on the communiqué issued by the Education Department stating that Patna High Court CWJC No.18457 of 2012 (2) dt.06-08-2013 3 wherever the controversy arises the post of the year 2006 transaction shall not be filled up in the next transaction. All these aspects in fact were capable of being understood by this Court had the petitioner made out a case in her application before the Tribunal that in the year 2006 when selection process had commenced someone having lesser marks to her or someone being disqualified alike her had already been appointed and it was on the ground of elimination of the petitioner and by selection of someone inferior candidate that she was not edged out. This Court has therefore carefully perused the application filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal and save and except in paragraph 15 there was not a single word to suggest that the petitioner has alleged any discrimination in the matter of selection and appointment in the year 2006. Paragraph 15, however, reads as follows: “15.That the appellant as per the query made by the Block Education Extension Officer, Lakhisarai Block has already submitted her application alongwith the certificate of her advocate as regard filing of writ application being C.W.J.C.No. 5528/2007 before the High Court at Patna and to her knowledge the post of teacher against she has been selected is still vacant.” In the considered opinion of this Court when the entire transaction was closed and the post got transferred to the second Patna High Court CWJC No.18457 of 2012 (2) dt.06-08-2013 4 selection undertaken in the year 2008 as has been held by the Tribunal, the petitioner cannot have now this post of the year 2006 revived for getting appointed on that post. In any event the Tribunal has very carefully considered this aspect while disposing of the complaint filed by the petitioner wherein dealing with this very aspect it has held as follows: ^^;|fi vihykFkhZ us ch0,M0 dh fMxzh o"kZ 1994 esa izkIr dh gS fdarq mUgksaus ljdkj ls ekU;rk cus jgus dh vof/k vFkkZr o"kZ 1990&91 ds ’kS{kf.kd o"kZ esa izf’k{k.k dk dk;Z iwjk dj yh gS vr% vihykFkhZ dh fMxzh o"kZ 2006 ds f’k{k.k fu;kstu gsrq oS/k gS fdarq vihykFkhZ dk bl izkFkZuk dks fd mUgsa ;ksxnku djus dk vkns’k fd;k tk; Lohd‘r djuk fu;ekuqlkj ugha gS D;ksafd ekuo lalk/ku foHkkx ds i=kad 7 fo0 1&233@0&496 iVuk fnukad 16-04-2009 dh dafMdk 2 ,oa 3 ds vkyksd esa 2006 dh fjfDr fnukad 20-03-2008 ds ckn o"kZ 2008 ds fu;kstu gsrq vkns’k x.kuk dj yh xbZ rFkk oSlh fLFkfr esa mu in@inksa ij fu;kstu dk vkns’k izkf/kdkj }kjk fd;k tkuk fu;ekuqdqy ugha gSA** That apart if the petitioner was aware that 2006 vacancies were still available on which she could be appointed nothing had prevented her to file a fresh application in the year 2008 in the second transaction if according to her that post had remained unfilled. In any event when this Court would find that no one having lesser marks to the petitioner was appointed and in fact the petitioner has also not alleged it in the writ application it must be held that simply because the petitioner was an empanelled Patna High Court CWJC No.18457 of 2012 (2) dt.06-08-2013 5 candidate that would give her no indefeasible right to be appointed. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Shankarson Das Vs. Union of India reported in (1991) 3 SCC 47. That being so, this application must fail and is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-