Neelam Bharti v. The State of Bihar

Gauri Kumari, daughter of Sri Laxmi Raidas, Resident of village Driver Tola, Ward No. 6, P.S. Katihar, district Katihar .. Petitioner Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna

2. The District Magistrate, Katihar 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar 4. The Block Development Officer, Hasanganj, district Katihar 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Hasanganj, Katihar 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rampur, Block Hasanganj, district Katihar

7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rampur, Block Hasanpur, district Katihar .. Respondents 2 /2/

07.07.2009 Heard the counsel for the parties

2. These two writ applications re being taken analogous as the petitioners in both the writ applications are claiming their appointment on the same post of Panchayat Teacher. Gauri Kumari, petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1609 of 2008, is aggrieved by order, dated 01.03.2007, whereby she has been terminated from her service of Panchayat Teacher on account of an order issued by the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, directing all concerned authorities not to recognize the Madhyama, Up-Shastri, Maulvi and Vocational degrees as equivalent to intermediate, for the purposes of appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. A direction has also been issued to the concerned authorities for removing services of those who were appointed as Panchayat Teachers having the degree of Up-Shastri, Madhyama, Maulvi or Vocational. In compliance of the direction of the State Government the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1609 of 2008 was removed from her service of Panchayat Teacher as she has done her intermediate in vocational course, which was deemed to be equivalent to the degree of intermediate. It seems that on account of termination of Gauri Kumari (petitioner in 3 C.W.J.C. No. 1609 of 2008), Neelam Bharti (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7396 of 2009) was appointed on that post by authorities of the concerned Gram Panchayat. Petitioner, Neelam Bharti, joined on the post in the year 2007 and since then was continuing on the post. Gauri Kumari challenge her termination order by filing C.W.J.C. No. 1609 of 2008. Simultaneously she also filed an appeal before the appellate tribunal by filing Appeal No. 63 of 2008. C.W.J.C. No. 7396 of 2009 has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order passed by appellate tribunal in Appeal No. 63 of 2008. Counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 7296 of 2009 submits that the appellate authority has directed to reinstate respondent no. 9 on the post of Teacher in Primary School, Rampur, Katihar, without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as she was not noticed. It has also been submitted by the petitioner’s counsel that admittedly out of nine posts of Panchayat Teachers, two posts were reserved for Scheduled Castes candidates and in the merit list Gauri Kumari (petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 1609 of 2008) was at serial no. 1 and Neelam Bharti was at serial no. 3. Gauri Kumari was appointed on the post, but, subsequently when the Selection Committee took a decision to terminate services 4 of candidate appointed having intermediate degree vocational course, since, intermediate vocational course was not the requisite qualification for appointment, cancelled the appointment of respondent no. 9. Neelam Bhartishe got an opportunity to be appointed. The petitioner, Neelam Bharti, at that time, was working as Teacher in another school, as such, resigned from her post on receiving appointment letter for Primary School, Rampur, Katihar, and joined there. Now, on the basis of orders passed in C.W.J.C. No.4878 of 2007 in L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008 intermediate degree invocational course has been accepted as requisite qualification, but, prior to that candidates having passed intermediate with vocational course were considered not eligible for the post of Panchayat Teacher, this situation was created by the authorities in the State by taking resolution against the existing rules. Now, on account of the appellate order and the decision in C.W.J.C. No. 4878 of 2007 and L.P.A. No. 469 of 2008 circumstances are such that she can not claim for continuation of her appointment on the post of Teacher earlier on which Gauri Kumari was appointed she lost her service and because of some erroneous decision taken by the State and it’s authorities, petitioner Neelam Bharti, 5 through her counsel has made a request for deciding her case on consideration of equity and compassion.

3. What I find that the issue regarding vocational course or other equivalent course as per Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers' (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, has already been decided by this Court and a Government direction has also been issued in compliance of the judgment and order passed by this Court. Legal ground is available to Gauri Kumari for her reinstatement on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The order of termination, dated

01.03.2007, cancelling her appointment, in this view, is fit to be quashed and, as such, it is quashed. Respondents are directed to reinstate Gauri Kumari on the post of Panchayat Teacher in Primary School, Rampur, Katihar, with all consequential and monetary benefits.

4. Simultaneously, the case of petitioner C.W.J.C. No. 7296 of 2009, Neelam Bharti, also requires consideration, since she lost her earlier job due to an erroenous resolution taken by the State Government as well as consequential orders passed by the Selection Committee of the concerned Gram Panchayat. There would not have been reason for Neelam Bharti, otherwise, to resign from her 6 earlier post and give joining at Primary School, Rampur, Katihar. On account of reinstatement of Gauri Kumari there will not be any existing vacancy available in the concerned Gram Panchayat, but, the respondents are directed to consider her case for appointment at any other suitable place on her post of Panchayat Teacher. In case at the school where Neelam Bharti was earlier functioning, no new person has been appointed, her case for appointment should be considered if any representation is filed by the petitioner, in this regard.

5. C.W.J.C. No. 7396 is disposed off with these observations and directions.

6. C.W.J.C. No. 1609 of 2008 is allowed. Cp:2/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)