Sunil Kumar Suman v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.3805 of 2011 (9) dt.18-12-2013 4

Ranju Kumari W/o Ashok Kumar Yadav, resident of Village Musharniya, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Ararea. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna.

The District Superintendent Of Education, Araria.

The Block Development Officer, Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

The Block Education Extension Officer, Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

The Mukhiya, Mannullahpatti Grampanchayat, Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

The Panchayat Secretary Mannullahpatti Grampanchayat, Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Araria.

Sushila Kumari D/O Krishnadeo Yadav Resident of Village Sukaila, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

Kumari Nivedita D/O Upendra Narayan Yadav Resident of Village Raghunaihpur, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

Mala Kumari D/O Benilal Yadav Resident of Village Rahadiha, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

Priya Kumari Mannullahpatti, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

Pushpa Devi W/O Dinesh Rajjak Resident of Village Mannullahpatti, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

Shivshankar Paswan S/o Harilal Paswan Resident of Village Bengwani, P.S. Raviganj, Dist. Araria.

Hemlata Kumari D/O Nasiblal Sharma Resident of Village + P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria.

Shivlal Kisku S/o Bailu Kisku Resident of Village Golha, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. W/O Arun Kumar Safe Resident of Village .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4022 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Sangeeta Kumari W/O Roshan Kumar Rai Resident of Village Rahriya, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Superintendent Of Education, Araria. 4. The Block Development Officer, Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 6. The Mukhiya, Mannullahpatti Grampanchayat, Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 7. The Panchayat Secretary Mannullahpatti Grampanchayat, Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 8. The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Araria. Patna High Court CWJC No.3805 of 2011 (9) dt.18-12-2013 5 W/O Arun Kumar Safe Resident of Village

9. Sushila Kumari D/O Krishnadeo Yadav Resident of Village Sukaila, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 10. Kumari Nivedita D/O Upendra Narayan Yadav Resident of Village Raghunaihpur, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 11. Mala Mumari D/O Benilal Yadav Resident of Village Rahadiha, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 12. Priya Kumari Mannullahpatti, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 13. Pushpa Devi W/O Dinesh Rajjak Resident of Village Mannullahpatti, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 14. Shivshankar Paswan S/o Harilal Paswan Resident of Village Bengwani, P.S. Raviganj, Dist. Araria. 15. Hemlata Kumari D/O Nasiblal Sharma Resident of Village + P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. 16. Shivlal Kisku S/o Bailu Kisku Resident of Village Golha, P.S. Bhargama, Dist. Araria. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 9 18-12-2013 All the six writ petitions are directed against the common order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the District Teachers’ Appointment Appellate Authority ( for short the ‘Appellate Authority’) in case no.

05-08 of 2008-09 whereby appointment of the petitioners as Panchayat Teachers ( for short ‘PT’) has been cancelled directing recovery of payment/salary made to them. They have, thus, been heard together with the consent of the parties. Order present shall govern them In Gram Panchayat Raj Mannullahpatti within Bhargama Block in the District of Araria 26 posts of PTs fell for appointment. After clearance of roster the process of selection was undertaken by the selection committee of the said Gram Patna High Court CWJC No.3805 of 2011 (9) dt.18-12-2013 6 Panchayat. The writ petitioners herein along with others were selected against their respective categories. 08 (Eight) out of 21 (twenty one) candidates/applicants, aggrieved by such selection of the writ petitioners, filed objection(s). Eight of them later filed writ petition being CWJC No. 1654 of 2009. A Bench of this Court by order dated 3.2.2009 (Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of respondent in CWJC No.

3832 of 2011) disposed of the said writ petition permitting the petitioners to approach the Appellate Authority for ventilation of their grievance. Accordingly, applications/objections vide case no. 05 -08 / 2008- 09 came to be filed before the Appellate Authority. The Appellate Authority called for report(s) from the Authority and permitted the oral evidence to be led and placed on the records. Having considered those materials an order was passed on 18.12.10 whereby it was held that the appointment of the petitioners was not made in accordance with the procedure laid down therefor. Having found so, notices were directed to be issued on the writ petitioners who were arrayed as respondents in those applications. By the said order dated 18.12.10 the writ petitioners were restraint from functioning as PTs until filing of their replies. The Appellate Authority, however, in its said order, found that 09 (nine) objectors before the Appellate Authority had not made out prima Patna High Court CWJC No.3805 of 2011 (9) dt.18-12-2013 7 facie case inasmuch as their objections were vague.

Those objections were rejected. Only 12 (Twelve) out of 21 (Twenty one) objections filed before the Appellate Authority were therefore required to be considered by the Appellate Authority. The writ petitioners, on notice, appeared and filed their separate show causes. The Appellate Authority, by the impugned order dated 18.2.2011, found diverse illegalities in their appointments and directed for termination of their services. Aggrieved thereby the present writ petitions have been filed. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Durgesh Nandan, who appeared on behalf of some of the private respondents. Pleadings have been exchanged between the parties. In spite of notice nobody has appeared on behalf of the respondent nos. 6 and 7 to contest the present case. It has been submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the order impugned merits to be interfered with and set aside on the sole ground that the case of each of the petitioners in the light of stand taken in their respective show causes has not been considered by the Appellate Authority.

Learned counsel placed the entire order passed by the Appellate Authority in order to substantiate his submission that specific case of Ranjana Kumari (petitioner in CWJC No. 3832 of 2011) and Punam Kumari Patna High Court CWJC No.3805 of 2011 (9) dt.18-12-2013 8 (petitioner in CWJC No. 4236 of 2011) was not even discussed and considered. There is no discussion at all about their respective cases in the impugned order. This was all the more necessary since before appearance of the petitioners the Appellate Authority had permitted several materials to be placed on record and on perusal whereof, findings prejudicial to the petitioner(s) were recorded. Diverse submissions have also been made by the petitioners touching the merit of their case. It has been submitted that the respondents- Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary had filed their show causes stating therein that appointments were made in accordance with law.

Only those who had appeared in the counseling after notice were considered and appointed. Mr. Durgesh Nandan, learned counsel for the private respondents, on the other hand, submitted that from the interim order passed on 18.12.2010 by the Appellate Authority it would appear that diverse illegalities were found by the Appellate Authority reflecting from the selection records which are sufficient to hold the view which has been taken by the Appellate Authority in the final order dated 18.2.2011. Having heard the parties it appears that the order passed by the Appellate Authority is in two parts. Before issuing notice and affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners the Patna High Court CWJC No.3805 of 2011 (9) dt.18-12-2013 9 Appellate Authority initiated enquiry wherein records were directed to be produced and the statements of some of the objectors was/were recorded. On perusal thereof, the Appellate Authority found the appointment(s) of the writ petitioners unsustainable in law.

Having held so, notices were directed to be issued to the writ petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that upon service of notice they appeared and filed their respective show causes setting out their case which differ from each other which were not separately considered by the Appellate Authority. It has been pointed out that at least case of two petitioners noticed hereinabove was not even noticed and considered and yet their appointments were held illegal . I have perused both the interim as well as the final order passed by the Appellate Authority. After appreciating the materials placed before it diverse findings were recorded by the Appellate Authority in its interim order. Those findings were recorded in absence of the petitioners. Having found so, notices were directed to be issued on the writ petitioners. Specific case of the petitioners is that they appeared and filed their show causes.

On perusal of the order, this Court finds that the case of each of the petitioners in the light of the stand taken by him/them in their respective show cause(s) has not been considered by the Patna High Court CWJC No.3805 of 2011 (9) dt.18-12-2013 10 Appellate Authority. Grant of proper opportunity of hearing to the party is one of the basic requirements of Law. This Court, thus, finds some substance in the contention of the petitioner(s). In the considered opinion of this Court the cause of justice shall be met if the petitioner(s) are granted an opportunity to make their submissions afresh before the Appellate Authority enabling it to consider them and pass a fresh order in accordance with law. Consequently, the final order dated 18.2.2011 passed by the Appellate Authority in so far as they relate to the petitioner(s) in case Nos. 05-08 of 2008-2009 is quashed and set aside. All the writ petitions are remitted back to the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order in accordance with law but after hearing the parties.

Let the writ petitioners as well as the private respondent appear before the Appellate Authority within 04 weeks along with a copy of this order enabling the Appellate Authority to pass a fresh order in the light of the present order. The applications are allowed in the aforesaid terms. No order as to costs. Shyam/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)