Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.1518 OF 2012 =================================================== CHUNCHUN KUMAR MALVIYA SON OF UMESH PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-BHADOUSH, P.S.-SHEIKHPURA, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA. .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 3.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE CUM-COLLECTOR, SHEIKHPURA 4.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SHEIKHPURA 5.THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (ESTABLISHMENT) EDUCATION, SHEIKHPURA 6.THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, CHEWARA IN THE DISTRICT OF SHEIKHPURA 7.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, CHEWARA IN THE DISTRICT OF SHEIKHPURA 8.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION EDUCATION EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SHEIKHPURA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY 9.THE SECRETARY, DISTRICT TEACHER EMPLOYMENT APPELLATE AUTHORITY, SHEIKHPURA 10.AJAY KUMAR ANAND SON OF SRI SATYADEO SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE-MAHESHPUR, P.O. + P.S.-CHEWARA, DISTRICT-SHEIKHPURA .... .... RESPONDENT/S =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Siyaram Sahi, Adv For the Respondent/s:Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh AAG7 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 7/ 21-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief prayed in this writ application:- "(i) To quash the order contained in memo no. 889 dated 14.12.2011 (Annexure-1) passed by the member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Sheikhpura (hereinafter referred to as the authority) only to the extent by which the appointment Patna High Court CWJC No.1518 of 2012 (7) dt.21-06-2013 2 of the petitioner to the post of Prakhand teacher under Chewara block in the district of Sheikhpura has been cancelled. (ii) Also to direct the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as Prakhand teacher in middle school, Andauli under Chewar Block in the district of Sheikhpura." From the materials on record it would appear that the petitioner’s appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher has been interfered by the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the disability certificate produced by him did not subscribe to the norms fixed by the Government. The Tribunal has recorded that as per the government circular it is the three member board which has to issue the certificate but in the case of the petitioner it is only two member Board who have done it. The Tribunal has come to a finding that there was no eye specialist in the Medical Board to declare that the petitioner was physically handicapped with eye disease. The Tribunal has further found that the disability certificate produced by the petitioner did not bear the signature of the District Welfare Officer and in fact when the same also lacked the signature of the petitioner which was to be put by him before the Civil Surgeon for its being countersigned,
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.1518 of 2012 (7) dt.21-06-2013 the validity and genuiness of such disability 3 certificate was fully doubtful and had consequently vitiated the appointment of the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Siyaram Sahi, learned counsel for the petitioner does not question these findings. He is however of the view that in place like Sheikhpura if two Doctors in the Medical had already examined the petitioner on 21.01.2008 and the identity cum disability certificate no. 3736 was issued under the signature of Civil Surgeon on 04.01.2008, the Tribunal was not required to go still deeper in the matter and in any event such disability certificate having been issued with signature of Civil Surgeon, Sheikhpura should not have been disbelieved. This Court has therefore, accordingly examined the materials on record including original identity card cum disability certificate produced by the petitioner. From their perusal it becomes clear that such certificate has to be issued by the Department of Social Welfare(Director of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar) and therefore, is being monitored through the office of District Welfare Officer. The District Welfare Officer, has however not put his signature on the medical Patna High Court CWJC No.1518 of 2012 (7) dt.21-06-2013 certificate of the petitioner. Added to it 4 absence of signature and/or thumb impression of the petitioner on the certificate would again raise question as to who was examined by the Medical Board and that is how the countersignature on the certificate put by Civil Surgeon will loose its significance. This Court would therefore, find that there was sufficient reason for the Tribunal to doubt the genuiness and correctness of the Disability certificate allegedly produced by the petitioner for seeking appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher under Disable category. The matter will not in fact rest there, inasmuch as, in paragraph no. 12 of the counter affidavit filed by respondent no. 10, he has specifically asserted that there were two vacancies for the disable category out of which the first one was for the orthopaedically handicapped whereas the second one was for the Visually Handicapped. He has also drawn attention towards Annexure-A to the counter affidavit showing that the vacancy was to be counted from 1252 to 1317 in order to reach the roster point of 66 vacancies which were to be filled up. Counsel for respondent no. 10 has also explained that as a matter of fact only 33 Patna High Court CWJC No.1518 of 2012 (7) dt.21-06-2013 post out of 66 were filled up and as such only 5 one person among the disable handicapped category could be appointed. According to learned counsel for respondent no. 10, it was respondent no. 10 belonging to the orthopaedically handicapped category who should have been selected and appointed but on the other hand it was the petitioner, who on the basis of invalid disability certificate, had stolen march over respondent no. 10. Mr. Shahi has tried to orally contradict the aforementioned stand taken by respondent no. 10 in the affidavit. In his view if the two posts were reserved for handicapped category and the first one could have gone to the Visually disable category, it was the petitioner who had to be appointed in preference to respondent no. 10. He has also tried to explain Annexure-A to the counter affidavit, the roster chart by giving the same interpretation ’Asthi’ as first one and ’Dristhi’ as second one of the two vacancies for the disabled category. According to him that will not mean that the roster point no. 1267 was meant only for Orthopaedically handicapped, inasmuch as, the roster point indicated in the roster chart does not specifically mention the same. Patna High Court CWJC No.1518 of 2012 (7) dt.21-06-2013 While this Court would not like to put a 6 final word on this aspect, inasmuch as, this issue has not been gone into by the Tribunal but then having regard to the aforementioned submissions, this Court would deem it expedient in the ends of justice to direct the Collector of Sheikhpura district to examine as to whether the roster point no. 1267 of Chewara Block for the post of Panchayat Shikshak was meant for the Orthopaedically handicapped or visually handicapped. In the event he would find that roster point no. 1267 was meant for Orthopaedically handicapped, he would straightway reject the case of the petitioner by passing his order but on the other hand if it is found by him that roster point no. 1267 was meant for Visually impaired disable category, he would direct the Civil Surgeon of Sheikhpura district to constitute a fresh medical board for ascertaining the disability of the petitioner. The Civil Surgeon in turn will avail the service of one eye specialist among three members of the Board and such report of the Board will be placed before the District Welfare Officer who after being satisfied of the requirement of the disability certificate will issue a fresh certificate in favour of Patna High Court CWJC No.1518 of 2012 (7) dt.21-06-2013 petitioner and thereafter, the same will be 7 produced before the competent authority who will reinstate the petitioner back in service. It however goes without saying that if the petitioner’s disability is not affirmed in the subsequent medical board the order of Tribunal shall remain undisturbed. The aforesaid exercise by the Collector of Sheikhpura district, Civil Surgeon of Sheikhpura district as also the District Welfare Officer, Sheikhpura must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. With the aforementioned observations and
Decision
direction, this application is disposed of. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)