Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1240 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Anil Kumar S/O Late Shiv Nandan Singh R/O Village- Bhimbigha, Police Station- Narhat, District- Nawada. 2. Subhash Kumar S/O Sri Ram Sevak Singh R/O Village- Kumbhi, Police Station- Mufassil, District- Nawada. 3. Satyendra Kumar Singh (Handicapped) S/O Sri Alakhdeo Singh R/O Village- Daniyar, Police Station- Govindpur, District- Nawada. 4. Kumari Babita Rani W/O Sri Arun Prasad Kushwaha R/O Village + Post - Sabhari, Police Station- Nardiganj, District- Nawada. 5. Manoj Kumar S/O Sri Rambriksh Singh R/O Village- Kendua, Police Station- Mufassil, District- Nawada. 6. Shashikant Kumar S/O Late Lalo Singh R/O Village- Ashadhi, Police Station- Mufassil, District- Nawada. 7. Ranjeet Ram S/O Sri Mahavir Ravidas R/O Village- Khaprahi, Police Station- Nawada, District- Nawada.
Legal Reasoning
8. Shyam Sundar Singh S/O Sri Ram Vilas Singh R/O Village- Gazipur, Police Station- Akbarpur, District- Nawada. 9. Veena Kumari W/O Sri Sanjay Kumar R/O Village- Simridih, Police Station- Warsaliganj, District- Nawada. 10. Satish Kumar Sharma S/O Sri Ram Lakhan Singh R/O Village- Narhat, Police Station- Narhat, District – Nawada. 11. Bhushan Kumar S/O Sri Ram Lakhan Singh R/O Village- Narhat, Police Station- Narhat, District- Nawada. 12. Nawal Kishore S/O Sri Alakhdeo Singh R/O Village- Daniyar, Police Station- Govindpur, District- Nawada. 13. Vijay Kumar S/O Sri Bindeshari Singh R/O Village- Punaul, Police Station- Narhat, District- Nawada. 14. Shakeel Ahmad Malik S/O Late Sarfaraz Ahmad Malik R/O Village- Arha, Police Station- Chandradeep, District- Jamui. 15. Faiz Alam S/O Md. Farid Alam R/O Village- Bhadauni, Police Station- Nawada, District- Nawada. Versus 1. The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, .... .... Petitioners Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The District Magistrate, Nawada. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawada. 5. The Additional Collector, Nawada. 6. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Rajauli, Nawada. 7. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Nawada Sadar, Nawada. 8. The Deputy Collector, District Establishment, Nawada. 9. The Dy. Collector, District Nazarat, Nawada. 10. The Office Superintendent, Collectariat, Nawada. .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha, Adv. Patna High Court CWJC No.1240 of 2012 (4) dt.04-01-2013 2 For the State : Mr. R.R. Tiwari, AC to AAG-12 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 04-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the prayer of the petitioners reads as follows:- “1(i) To quash the decision of District Establishment Committee, Nawada bearing memo no. 57 dated 25.11.2011, whereby and whereunder, panel for IVth grade employee prepared pursuant to the advertisement dated 17.01.2004 (Annexure 2) issued by the Collector, Nawada as per direction of this Hon’ble Court has been cancelled at the dictate of the present Collector, giving reference to the order dated 12.07.2010 (Annexure 10), passed in CWJC No. 15961 2006, though there is no such direction in said order of the Hon’ble Court, as such the aforesaid impugned direction is wholly illegal, arbitrary and is not sustainable in the eye of law. (ii) To direct the respondents not to disturb the panel, which has been prepared in compliance to the direction of the Hon’ble Court, after following the guideline of the State Government as the petitioners having the requisite qualification in terms of advertisement submitted their application and after thorough scrutiny, verification and interview there names had been included in the panel and after long lapse of time, cancellation of said panel is bad in law. (iii) To direct the Respondents to notify the fresh panel after removing the defects, if any, in the panel of year 2004 and to appoint the petitioners against the available vacancies as per their position in the panel.” Patna High Court CWJC No.1240 of 2012 (4) dt.04-01-2013 3 Mr. S.C. Jha, learned counsel for the petitioners, has submitted that the respondents have erroneously proceeded to cancel the panel on the strength of the order of this Court dated 12.7.2010 in CWJC No. 15961 of 2006 whereas this Court had never asked the Collector to cancel the panel. He has also submitted that there cannot be an anomalous situation that the persons like the petitioners would be now stand deprived of the benefit of being included in the same panel which has been cancelled whereas 160 persons on the basis of the same panel would be allowed to continue in service. In the considered opinion of this Court, while first argument of Mr. Jha has to be rejected on the ground that this Court in clear terms had held the panel prepared by the Collector of Nawada district to be bad and in this regard, it had held as follows:- “On the basis of earlier direction passed by this Court a counter affidavit on behalf of Cabinet Vigilance has been filed in which it has been categorically indicated that all has not been done well with the preparation of panel of 2002 and 2004. Many instances of wrong doing have been indicated based on the vigilance enquiry which was in turn based on the direction of the Court. With the claim of the petitioner not being totally above board and as the cloud or the question mark on the status of the appointments made from such panels Patna High Court CWJC No.1240 of 2012 (4) dt.04-01-2013 4 has been seriously raised, the Court has reservation in passing any direction for payment to the petitioner. The matter is left open to the district authorities or other functionaries of the State to proceed in the matter in accordance with the report of the vigilance and take some decision on this issue.” As a matter of fact, this Court had clearly held the panel to be bad and, therefore, the follow up action by way of Annexure-1 cannot be faulted either on fact or in law. Once this Court would find that the impugned order as contained in Annexure-1 does not suffer from any infirmity, it has to now to address to the second aspect as with regard to the continuation of 160 persons who are said to have been appointed on the basis of the same panel which was found to be vitiated and cancelled in the light of the observations and findings recorded by this Court. Unfortunately, there is no averment in the writ application to this effect as against the appointment of 160 persons beyond only paragraph referred to by Mr. Jha being paragraph no.15 reading as follows:- “15. That is not in dispute that the panel in question was prepared finally on 05.05.2004 in accordance with guideline of the State Government contained in letter no. 16441 dated 03.02.1980 and letter no. 3577 dated 25.04.1997 issued by the Personnel & Administrative Reforms Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. It is also not in dispute that after preparation of panel the meeting of appointment Patna High Court CWJC No.1240 of 2012 (4) dt.04-01-2013 5 committee was held on 14.12.2004 under the Chairmanship of Collector, Nawada and in said meeting name of altogether 160 empanelled candidates was recommended for appointment for different categories. Break up of 160 recommended candidates are like this- General 73, Scheduled caste 46, Extremely Backward Caste 23, Backward 11 and Backward (Female) 7. From perusal of the decision of the meeting dated 14.12.2004, it would reveal that panel was prepared strictly in accordance with law.” It will be clear from perusal of paragraph no.15 that the petitioners have not said a word even about the appointment of those 160 persons much less their continuation in service. None from the group of 160 persons have been impleaded as party to this writ application and, therefore, this Court cannot presume as with regard to their continuation in service. If the petitioners are so sanguine that those 160 persons are still continuing in service and are part of the same transaction in which the entire panel was found to be vitiated, it will be always open for the petitioners to approach the Collector of the district to do the needful as with regard to 160 persons. While disposing of such a representation of the petitioners, the Collector of the district is expected to decide the matter objectively that the same panel cannot be held to be good for 160 persons and bad for the persons like the petitioners. Patna High Court CWJC No.1240 of 2012 (4) dt.04-01-2013 6
Decision
This application is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforementioned observations. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-