Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19073 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Renu Kumari D/O Bhim Shankar Prasad Resident Of Village - Naughara , P.S.- Chainpur , District - Kaimur At Bhabhua 2. Md. Sariful Hasan S/O Azimuddin Resident Of Village - Mukeriya , P.S.- Kadwa , District - Katihar 3. Arti W/O Manoj Kumar Resident Of Village - Sherpur Jagariya , P.S.- Chainpur , District - Kaimur At Bhabhua 4. Deomuni Prasad S/O Chaturbhuj Ram Resident Of Village - Maturna, P.S.- Chainpur , District - Kaimur At Bhabhua 5. Kumari Sarita Yadav D/O Ram Nath Singh Yadav Resident Of Village - Jagariya , P.S.- Chainpur , District - Kaimur At Bhabhua 6. Suman Kumari Singh D/O Ram Naresh Pandit Resident Of Village - Akhlaspur, P.S.- Bhabhua , District - Kaimur At Bhabhua Versus .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Commissioner -Cum-Secretary, Human Resources Development Department (Education), Government Of Bihar , Patna 3. The Direcotr , Primary & Adult Education Department , Govt. Of Bihar , Patna 4. The Deputy Development Commissionar , Kaimur (Bhabhua) 5. The District Magistrate , Kaimur (Bhabhua) 6. The District Education Officer , Kaimur (Bhabhua) 7. The District Suprintendent Of Education Cum Sub Divisional Education , Kaimur (Bhabhua) 8. The Block Development Officer , Chainpur , District - Kaimur (Bhabhua) 9. The Gram Panchayat , Udayrampur Block , Chainpur , District - Kaimur (Bhabhua) , Through Panchyat Secretary. 10. The Mukhiya Gram Panchyat , Udayrampur Block Chainpur , P.S.- Chainpur , District - Kaimur (Bhabhua) 11. The Panchyat Secreatary Gram Panchyat , Udayrampur Block Chainpur , P.S.- Chainpur , District - Kaimur (Bhabhua) 12. Arundhati Devi W/O Sri Akhilesh Kumar Resident Of Village - Rupapatti , Police Station - Chainpur , District - Kaimur (Bhabhua) 13. Baidehi Kumari D/O Haldhar Tripathi Resident Of Mohalla - Ward No.- 1 , P.S.- Bhabhua , District - Kaimur (Bhabhua) 14. Usha Kumari W/O Manoj Kumar , D/O Ramesh Paswan Resident Of Village - Dumri Block Sheosagar , P.S Sheosagar , District - Rohtas .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. A.C to G.P. 11 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER Patna High Court CWJC No.19073 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2013 2/7 4 30-10-2013 In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Kaimur, Bhabhua (for short „the Tribunal‟) whereby the application preferred by the private respondents herein was allowed and the respondents were directed to reinstate the private respondents as Panchayat Teachers after setting aside the impugned order dated 14.9.2007 (Annexure-3) and the consequential order dated 22.10.2007. 2. The relevant facts giving rise to the writ petition are that Gram Panchayat Udayrampur, Chainpur, in the district of Kaimur (Bhabua) invited application(s) for engagement/appointment to the post of Panchayat Shikshak. The petitioners became the applicants. After concluding the selection process, 16 persons were selected including the private respondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14 as Panchayat Teachers. They were issued appointment letters. Some complaints were made against such selection of candidates. The respondent District Magistrate, Kaimur(Bhabua) by the order dated 2.7.2007 constituted a Committee to enquire into the allegation. The Committee was headed by the Additional Collector, Kaimur. The enquiry committee after making enquiry found that the selection of Panchayat Teachers was not completed as per the rule and thus directed the concerned officer to hold a fresh counseling for selection of the candidates. In the light of such report, selection earlier made was cancelled and a fresh counseling for selection was made. The petitioner as well as the private respondents and other candidates appeared thereat. The private respondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14 were not selected whereas the petitioners and others
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.19073 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2013 3/7 were selected. Aggrieved by the aforesaid selection after fresh counseling, the private respondents filed a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No. 16116 of 2007. A Bench of this Court by order dated 10.3.2010 (Annexure-5) disposed of the said application permitting the petitioners to file an appeal before the Tribunal constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Avam Seva Sart) Niyamavali, 2006 (as amended by the Amendment Act, 2008) (for short the „Niyamavali‟). The respondents in the light of the said order of this Court approached the Tribunal and two appeals being Appeal Nos. 229 of 2010 and 243 of 2010 were filed. The Tribunal issued notices to all the parties including the writ petitioners herein and after hearing the parties and on consideration of the materials placed before it, by a common order dated 18.8.2011 (Annexure-1) allowed the appeals and set aside the impugned order passed by the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub Divisional Education Officer, Bhabua and consequential order passed by the concerned Gram Panchayat dated 22.10.2007 and directed for reinstatement of the appellants (private respondents herein) to the post of Panchayat Teachers. The said order has been impugned by the petitioners.
Legal Reasoning
3. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned A.C. to G.P. 11 for the State. Nobody appeared on behalf of respondent Nos. 12, 13 and 14. However, counter affidavits on their behalf as well as on behalf of respondent Nos. 5 to 8 have been filed. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the order passed by the Tribunal submits that while allowing the appeal preferred by the private respondents herein the Tribunal Patna High Court CWJC No.19073 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2013 4/7 erred in not considering the illegalities/defects in the appointment of the private respondents. It has been submitted that the selection earlier made by the Gram Panchayat suffers from diverse defects. The Tribunal only considered relevant provisions of the Act in order to conclude that the District Magistrate and for that matter any other authority except the Block Development Officer had no jurisdiction to entertain any application respecting selection of Panchayat Teacher. The enquiry committee constituted by the District Magistrate was found contrary to the provisions contained in the Niyamavali governing the selection process of the Panchayat Teacher. Mr. Ashutosh Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners however fairly contended that according to the provisions of the Niyamavali, the District Magistrate or the District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub Divisional Education Officer has no role to play. It has further been submitted that even if the enquiry report submitted by the Additional Collector, Kaimur, is taken out of consideration, yet the Tribunal was required to examine the various illegalities committed in the selection of the private respondents herein. 5. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand submitted that under the relevant provisions of the Niyamavali the Block Development Officer is the competent/appropriate authority to examine any grievance respecting such selection. Any aggrieved party could have filed appeal thereagainst before the Tribunal subsequently constituted under the amended provision of the Niyamavali. It has further been submitted that the materials placed on record including the statements made in the writ petition do not disclose the material infirmity, if any, committed in the selection of the private respondents which was made the Patna High Court CWJC No.19073 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2013 5/7 subject matter of the enquiry under the orders of the District Magistrate. 6. I have heard the parties and perused the materials on record. The Tribunal in its order has found that before cancelling the appointment of the private respondents no opportunity of hearing was given to the selected candidates including the private respondents. The District Magistrate having noticed the provisions of the Niyamavali by a subsequent communication dated 2.7.2008 had clearly stated that the District Superintendent of Education had no jurisdiction to cancel the appointment and/or to direct initiation of fresh counseling after cancelling the appointment earlier made by the selection committee/Gram Panchayat. This is what the Tribunal observed in the order: “ mYys[kfu; gS fd izFke pj.k f’k{kd fu;sktu 2006 ds fu;ekoyh ds dafMdk 18 esa iapk;r f’k{kd fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr vfiyh; inkf/kdkjh dsoy lacaf/kr iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh gh FksA vr% tkWap lfefr ds vuq’kalk ij ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd] dSewj }kjk fu;kstu dks jn~n djuk fu;ekuwdwy ugh gSA bl laca/k esa ckn esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh] dSewj }kjk vkns’k …Kki la 1191‰ fnukad 02-07-08 }kjk ;g Li"V fd;k tk pqdk gS fd ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd dks fu;qfDr;ksa dks jn~n djus dk vf/kdkj ugh gSA ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds i= la0 803 fnukad 17-04-08 }kjk Hkh bl ckr dks Li"V fd;k x;k gS fd fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd dh blesa dksbZ Hkwfedk ugh gS vkSj mUgs ekuns; ds Hkqxrku ij jksd yxkus dk dksbZ vf/kdkj ugh gSA fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj ;g vf/kdkj dsoy iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh dks FkkA fof/k iwoZd vkSj fu;ekuqlkj p;fur f’k{kdksa dks fu;sktu ds i’pkr ,d oS/kkfud vf/kdkj izkIr gks tkrk gS ftlls mUgs euekus <ax ls vkSj vLi"V] vizekf.kr vkjksiks ds vk/kkj ij cM+h lgtrk ls oafpr ugh fd;k tk ldrkA lHkh i{kksa dks lquus] mudh nyhyksa ij lE;d~ fopkj] fu;sktu ls lacaf/kr lHkh nLrkostksa] iath vkfn ds vkoyksdu vkSj fu;kstu ds lHkh igyqvksa ij lE;d~ fopkj ds mijkar eS bl fu"d"kZ ij igqpk gwW fd xzke iapk;r mn;jkeiqj esa ftyk inkf/kdkjh] dSewj }kjk xfBr tkWp lfefr }kjk f’k{kd fu;sktu laca/kh f’kdk;rksa@vkif(cid:217)k;ksa dh tkWp {ks=kf/kdkj Patna High Court CWJC No.19073 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2013 6/7 (Jurisdiction) ds ckgj Fkh vkSj mDr tkWp izfrosnu ds vk/kkj ij ftyk f’k{kk v/kh{kd dk vkns’k Hkh vukf/kdkj (Without Jurisdiction) Fkk D;ksfd iapk;r f’k{kd fu;sktu fu;ekoyh 2006 ds vuqlkj fu;sktu ds laca/k esa f’kdk;r@vkif(cid:217)k lquus dk vf/kdkj dsoy iz[k.M fodkl inkf/kdkjh dks Fkk vkSj vc izkf/kdkj dks gSA” 7. It appears that after completing selection process and issuance of appointment letters, some complaints were lodged/filed before the District Magistrate, Kaimur, Bhabua, as well as the District Superintendent of Education, Kaimur, Bhabua. The District Magistrate gave a direction for constitution of an enquiry committee headed by the Additional Collector to go into the veracity of the allegations. The said committee is said to have recorded certain findings. The finding/report of the said committee has not been placed on the record. In the light of the said report, the District Superintendent of Education by order dated 14.9.2007 (Annexure-3) directed for cancellation of the appointment of the incumbents and for taking fresh steps for counseling and preparing a merit list and thereafter to make appointments. From the said order it does not appear as to on what ground the said order was passed. It merely refers to the report submitted by the enquiry committee. From the impugned order of the Tribunal it is manifest that the District Magistrate subsequently clarified that the District Superintendent of Education in the matter of selection and appointment of Panchayat Teacher had no role to play. If that be the case then the enquiry report, if any, submitted by the enquiry committee set up by the District Magistrate and the consequential order passed by the District Superintendent of Education (Annexure-3) become irrelevant. The petitioners have not placed any material to support their contention that the earlier selection Patna High Court CWJC No.19073 of 2011 (4) dt.30-10-2013 7/7 made suffered from any serious defect(s) making the selection wholly illegal. It also does not appear that any such submission was made by the petitioners before the Tribunal when such opportunity was given to them. 8. On consideration of the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioners have failed to demonstrate any patent illegality in the order dated 18.8.2011 passed by the Tribunal after affording opportunity to all the parties meriting any interference. The reasons assigned by the Tribunal in the impugned order cannot be faulted. 9. The writ application lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Decision
10. There will be no order as to costs. sudip/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)