Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15875 of 2008 ====================================================== Bibha Kumari, daughter of Rajmuni Prasad and wife of Ram Jaipal Singh, resident of village – Chatar, P.O. Paibigha, P S – Makhdumpur, District - Jehanabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Block Development Officer, Belaganj, District – Gaya. 3. The Block Education Extension Officer, Belaganj, District –Gaya. 4. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Karmathu, P O – Belaganj, District –Gaya. 5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Karmathu, P S – Belaganj, District – Gaya. 6. Soni Kumari wife of name not known, resident of village – Mahamadpur, P S – Belaganj, District –Gaya. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar Mr. Sanjay Kumar Sharma Mr. Md. Hussamuddin Azad For the State : Mrs. Abhanjalli, JC to GP-16 For Respondent No.16 : Mr. Ashok Kumar ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 3 05-03-2013 After filing of the writ application certain developments have taken place which has been brought on record through I.A. No.9028 of 2011. This I.A. is also for amendment in the prayer initially made in the writ application, in view of subsequent decisions which have been rendered by the tribunal in Anneuxre-7 and 8. Petitioner is seeking quashing of not only Annexure-5 to the writ application but also Annexure-7 and 8 to the interlocutory application. 2
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.15875 of 2008 (3) dt.05-03-2013 2 / 6 2. I.A. No. 9028 of 2011 is allowed. 3. The dispute is between the present petitioner and respondent no.6 for the post of a Panchayat Teacher in Panchayat Karmathu, P S – Belaganj, District –Gaya. 4. In the year 2006 after the new rule came into place which is known as Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rule, 2006, one aspect is admitted between the parties that when the merit list was drawn up the present petitioner was at serial No.9 of the merit list and the private respondent No.6 figured at serial No.8. Based on the merit position the Panchayat offered an appointment letter to the private respondent giving her a time frame for her consent as well as verification of the testimonials. 5. It is the case of the present petitioner and is her submission that the private respondent was also a claimant or hopeful for appointment in some other Panchayats for which effort was being made and therefore, despite appointment letter having been issued, she chose not to report or join within the specified time-frame, which is said to be 10 days as per the rules. Since the post was not filled up due to non-reporting by the private respondent, the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.15875 of 2008 (3) dt.05-03-2013 3 / 6 Panchayat decided to appoint the next on the merit list i.e. the present petitioner. All hell broke loose after the appointment of the petitioner because by that time the private respondent realized that she will not be given appointment in the Panchayat or place of her liking. Complaints were lodged that the Panchayat malafidely ignored the claim for appointment of the private respondent on one pretext or the other and illegally appointed the present petitioner on her place. 6. Matter was examined by the erstwhile designated authority namely, the Block Development Officer, Belaganj, who went into the matter and passed an order on 28.8.2008 that appointment of the present petitioner was wrong, claim of the private respondent was illegally ignored and therefore, a direction was required for acceptance of joining of private respondent namely, Soni Kumari. 7. When nothing came to be done, Soni Kumari approached the tribunal by filing Case No. 36 of 2009. An order dated 13th February, 2009 came to be passed, which is Anneuxre-7 to the I.A. A reading of the same would show that the matter was decided in favour of Soni Kumari on the 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.15875 of 2008 (3) dt.05-03-2013 4 / 6 basis of the decision rendered by the Block Development Officer. 8. The present petitioner had also filed complaint which is Case No.53 of 2010. This complaint was rejected on the ground that the tribunal had no right to review its earlier decision, meaning thereby that since already an adjudication was made in Case No. 36 of 2009, nothing was required to be decided in the complaint of the petitioner. The writ therefore is now before this Court challenging the three orders. 9. Thrust of the argument of the counsel for the petitioner is that if the mandatory requirement of the rules with regard to consent was not given, the vacancy remained. Appointment as per resolution of the Panchayat was made and there was nothing illegal about such appointment, which was in order taking into consideration the actual state of affairs of the private respondent not reporting within the time-frame. On the face of it, the Block Development Officer or the tribunal could have gone by the logic that private respondent no.6 had more marks, was senior in the merit list and therefore, she had a right. 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.15875 of 2008 (3) dt.05-03-2013 5 / 6 10. The Court is not willing to decide the matter on the dispute by rendering its opinion as to the actual state of affairs taking into consideration the nature of the order which is going to be passed. 11. At the outset the Court has no hesitation in recording its opinion that there is complete abdication of power and authority by the tribunal in the manner in which Annexure-7 has come to be passed in the case of the private respondent. The adjudication should have been made after hearing the matter on its own merit but sum essence of the order contained in Annexure-7 is an endorsement on the findings given by the Block Development Officer. 12. To make it worse that cryptic order contained in Annexure-7 has been used as the basis for not deciding the claim of the petitioner in her case before the tribunal. 13. A quasi judicial authority is not supposed to decide the matter in such a cursory manner and therefore, Anneuxre-5 stands quashed, which shall not be used as the basis for any further adjudication. Similarly Anneuxre-7 and 8 which have been passed in Case No. 36 of 2009, dated 13.2.2009 as well as order dated 25.2.2011 passed in Case No. 53 of 2010 are also quashed. 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.15875 of 2008 (3) dt.05-03-2013 6 / 6 14. Matter is remanded back to the tribunal which will now hear both the parties to the dispute, take evidence on the issue and decide the matter afresh not influenced by any past order or material which may have come in adjudication of Anneuxre-7 or 8. 15. If the parties appear before the tribunal with a copy of this order, a decision preferably within a period of three months ought to be rendered. 16. Writ application is allowed to the extent indicated as above. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) R.K.Pathak/-