Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17404 of 2013 ====================================================== Lakshamikant Pyarelal, son of Raghunandan Ram, resident of village Mahmadabad, P.O. + P.S. Sarai, District Vaishali .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director (Primary Education), Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali 4. The District Education Officer, Vaishali 5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali 6. The Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali 7. The Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Kiratpur Rajaram, Block Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali 9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Kiratpur Rajaram, Block Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali 10. Arvind Kumar, son of Rajendra Chaudhary, resident of village Rampur Asurar, P.O. Bithauli, District Vaishali .... .... Respondents ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8005 of 2013 ====================================================== Arvind Kumar Son Of Shri Rajendra Chaudhary Resident Of Village- Rampur Asurar, P.O.- Bithauli, P.S.- Bhagwanpur, District- Vaishali .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 4. The Regional Deputy Director Of Education, Tirhut Commissionary, Darbhanga 5. The District Education Officer, Vaishali At Hazipur 6. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Vaishali At Hazipur 7. The District Teachers Selection Appellate Authority, Vaishali At Hazipur Through Its Member 8. The Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur, Vaishali 9. The Selection Committee Of Gram Panchayat Raj, Raj Kirathpur Rajaram, District- Vaishali 10. The Secretary Of The Gram Panchayat Raj, Raj Kirathpur Rajaram, District- Vaishali 11. The Mukhiya Of Gram Panchayat Raj, Raj Kirathpur Rajaram, District- Vaishali 12. Lakshmikant Pyarelal Son Of Raghunandan Ram Resident Of Village- Mahwadabad, P.O.- Sarai, P.S.- Sarai, District- Vaishali .... .... Respondents Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 2 ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.17404 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Gautam Bose, AAG8 For respondent no.10 : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Adv. (In CWJC No.8005 of 2013) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Amrit Abhijat, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Priyadarshi, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 5 21-11-2013 Heard leaned counsel for the parties. These two writ applications arise out of an order dated 20.3.2013 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Vaishali in Case No. DMJS-12/11, whereby and whereunder the Tribunal while allowing the application of the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal has set aside the earlier appointment of Arvind Kumar, who is respondent no.10 in C.W.J.C.No. 17404/2013 filed by the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal for implementation of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. The other writ petition, C.W.J.C.No. 8005/2013 has been in fact filed by Arvind Kumar assailing that very order of the Tribunal, inasmuch as he is aggrieved on account of the direction given by the Tribunal for termination of his service. The facts giving rise to both the writ applications lie in a narrow compass. The petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal, who was an applicant for the post of Panchayat Teacher, had found himself
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 3 to be edged out in the ultimate appointment and his case before the authorities and the Tribunal was that though his position was at much higher place in the final merit list prepared for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher, the authorities of the Panchayat had illegally appointed Arvind Kumar, the petitioner in C.W.J.C.No. 8005/2013 and respondent no.10 in C.W.J.C.No. 17404/2013. The Tribunal having gone to the nitty-gritty of the entire aspect had ultimately gone to hold that once the name of the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal was included in the panel and he was also present on the date of counseling he could not have been left out for favouring an appointment to Arvind Kumar. To that extent the Tribunal has also noted the defence of Arvind Kumar as was filed before the Tribunal in writing through his counsel. This Court in fact had no difficulty in approving the aforesaid findings of the Tribunal, inasmuch as whatever materials were produced before the Tribunal went to conclusively show that the petitioner had higher marks and higher merit position as against Arvind Kumar whose name somehow did not figure in the merit list. The submission of the counsel for Arvind Kumar that actually short-listed list produced before the Tribunal was not the merit list and the merit list had to be in respect of all the candidates which was not even examined by the Tribunal could Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 4 have been accepted by this Court if Arvind Kumar had higher marks than the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal. The submission of the learned counsel for Arvind Kumar that the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal does not possess valid experience certificate whereas the petitioner Arvind Kumar had a valid experience certificate as found by the authorities of the Panchayat could again be of no effective assistance to the Tribunal, inasmuch as the Tribunal was in fact deprived from going into all these issues on account of non-production of the relevant documents as has been noted by the Tribunal in the order, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows: ^^mi;q ZDr lkjs rF;ksa dk voyksdu dj ,oa nksuksa i{kksa dk lqudj ;g Kkr gksrk gS fd okns dk es/kk vad izfroknh ls dkQh vf/kd gS fu/kkZfjr frfFk dks dkWUflafyax esa Hkh mUgksaus Hkkx fy;k tSlk fd lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds rgr ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh dk;kZy; ls izkIr dkWUflafyax lwph@lR;kiu lwph ,oa vU; dkxtkrksa ls iq"V gksrk gS ftlesa izfroknh dk uke ugha gS] fQj izfroknh dk fu;kstu ,dk,d ,d fnu esa fu;kstu i= dSls ns fn;k x;k rFkk fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk izkf/kdkj ,oa ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh …LFkkiuk‰] oS’kkyh ds le{k vusdksa Lekjksa ds i’pkr fu;kstu laca/kh eqy vfHkys[k tkap gsrq miLFkkfir ugha fd;s x;s ;g fu;kstu bdkbZ ds xyr ea’kk dk ?kksrd gSA fcuk vfHkys[k miLFkkfir fd;s iapk;r lfpo us vfr laf{kIr izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k] ftlls LFkfr Li"V ugha gksrk gS ;g izfroknh ds fu;kstu ij iz’u fpUg cuk jg tkrk gSa blls Li"V gksrk gS fd fu;kstu esa vfu;ferrk,a dh xbZ gS ftlls dh eqy vfHkys[k tku cq>dj xyr ea’kk ls fdlh Lrj ij miLFkkfir ugha fd;k tk jgk gS ftlls dh izkIr djus ds fy, ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh …LFkkiukY Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 5 oS’kkyh us lacaf/kr O;fDr;ksa ij izkFkfedh ntZ djkus dh Hkh izLrko fn;k gSA vr% eSa bl fu"d"kZ ij igwprk gwWA izfroknh dk fu;kstu ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh …LFkkiuk‰ oS’kkyh ds izfrosnu ds vkyksd esa oS/k izekf.kr ugha gksrk gS pqafd cS/krk dks izekf.kr djus gsrq mUgksaus dksbZ iq"V lk{; muds }kjk izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k vkSj u gh fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjkA vr% vkosnd ds vkosnu dks Lohd‘r fd;k tkrk gSaA ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh oS’kkyh foHkkxh; vkns’kkas ds vkyksd esa s vxzsRrj dkjZokbZ djsaxsA izfrfyfi lacaf/kr dks nh tk,A** It would thus become clear that whatever view the Tribunal had taken was based on a truncated record and the issue as to whether the name of Arvind Kumar was in the panel or not and whether the experience certificate of Arvind Kumar vis-à-vis petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal was valid or not was neither gone into nor could have been gone into by the Tribunal in absence of records. In that view of the matter, the Tribunal’s vague direction of allowing the application but without giving any specific order for appointment of the petitioner was incapable of being acted upon and that is how the whole controversy has emerged in the mind of the District Education Officer. It is true that the District Education Officer had no business to question the wisdom of the Tribunal as was done by him by issuing an order dated 5.7.2013 which reads as follows: Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 6 ^^ftyk f’k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkf/kdkj] oS’kkyh ds okn la[;k DMJS-12/11 Jh y{ehdkUr I;kjs yky ouke lfpo iapk;r f’k{kd fu;kstu bdkbZ xzke iapk;r jkt fdjriqj jktkjke] iz[k.M Hkxokuiqj esa Kkikad 33 fnukad 20-03-2013 }kjk ikfjr vkns’k es a vkosnd ds vkosnu dks Lohd‘r djrs gq, v/kksgLrk{kjh dks foHkkxh; vkns’k ds vkyksd esa vxzsRrj dkjZokbZ djus gsrq funsf’kr fd;k x;k gSA izklkafxd ekeyk xzke iapk;r jkt fdjriqj jktkjke] iz[k.M Hkxokuiqj ds vUrxZr 2008 ds f}rh; iapk;r fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr gSa iapk;r lfpo] xzke iapk;r jkt fdjriqj jktkjke] iz[k.M Hkkxoku ds i=kad 02 fnukad 11-01-2003 }kjk izfrosnu lefiZr fd;k x;k gS fd iwoZ iapk;r lfpo }kjk mDr fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr vfHkys[k izhkkj esa ugha lkSaik x;k gSa izHkkj ysus ds dze esa vU; iaft;ks a esa ;Fkk tue] e‘R;q iath esa bl fu;kstu ls lacaf/kr dkWmflafyax dh Nk;k izfr es/kk lwph fu;kstu i= dh Nk;k izfr izkIr gqbZ ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd iz/kku lfpo] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds Kkikad 1475 fnukad 04-12-2010 ds }kjk fnukad 13-08-2010 ,oa 14-08-2010 dks fu/kkZfjr dkWmUflafyax dj fu;kstu i= forj.k dh frfFk dks oknh y{ehdkUr I;kjs yky mifLFkr ugha gq,A ,slh fLFkfr esa izfroknh vjfoUn dqekj tks fu/kkZfjr dkWmUflafyax esa mifLFkr Fks vkSj fu;kstu i= izkfIr frfFk dks Hkh mifLFkr Fks mUgs a fu;kstu i= izkIr djk fn;k x;kA mDr fu;kstu ds vk/kkj ij Jh vjfoUn dqekj uol‘ftr izkFkfed fo|ky; fdjriqj foUn Vksyk esa fu;fer :i ls dk;Zjr gSa ftlds vk/kkj ij os ekuns; Hkqxrku izkIr dj jgs gSA iz/kku lfpo] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj iVuk ds i=kad 1475 fnukad 04-12-2010 ds }kjk fnukad 29-12-2010 ,oa 3012- 2010 dks dkWmUflafyax dj fu;kstu i= nsus gsrq vafre frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh x;h FkhA mDr fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds i’pkr fn;k x;k fu;kstu i= oS/k ugha gksxkA lkFk gh mDr fu/kkZfjr frfFk ds mijkUr dksbZ fu;kstu ughas fd;k tk,xk rFkk f}rh; fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ lekIr ekuh tk,xhA foHkkxh; i=kad 1475 fnuakd 04-12-2010 esa of.kZr izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr iapk;r f’k{kd ds ekeys esa fnukad 29-12-2010 ,oa 30-12-2010 ds i’pkr fn;k x;k fu;kstu i= oS/k ugha gksxk rFkk f}rh; fu;kstu dh Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 7 dkjZokbZ lekIr ekuh tk;sxhA mDr fu/kkZfjr rF;ksa ds mijkRu dksb fu;kstu ugha fd;k tk;sxkA bl izdkj oknh Jh y{ehdkUr I;kjs yky dk fu;kstu foHkkxh; izko/kkuqlkj oRrZeku ifjfLFkfr esa ugha fd;k tk ldsxkA Jh vjfoUn dqekj ds fu;kstu dks vihyh; izkf/kdkjm }kjk oS/k ugha ekuk x;k gSaaA muds fu;kstu ds laca/k esa iapk;r fu;kstu lfefr esa j[kdj muds fu;kstu ds laca/k esa fu.kZ; ysdj vxzsrj dkjZokbZ fd;k tk;A** This Court infact having noted the aforementioned defiant attitude of the District Education Officer had passed an order dated 13.9.2013, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “ This Court fails to understand as to how the D.E.O., Vaishali can sit over the findings and the directions given by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) and proceed to pass an order dated 5.7.2013 contrary to the findings and the directions given by the Tribunal. That being so, this Court would direct the D.E.O., Vaishali to personally swear an affidavit as with regard to passing of the impugned order dated 5.7.2013.”
Legal Reasoning
As a matter of fact when Mr. Shashi Bhushan Rai, the District Education Officer, Vaishali had appeared on 7.10.2013 and had submitted his explanation by way of filing of his counter affidavit the same was not found to be satisfactory and he was given further opportunity to correct his order dated 5.7.2013. The District Education Officer, Vaishali now has filed a supplementary counter affidavit on 23.10.2013, wherein in paragraph 3 he has Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 8 stated as follows: “3.That after realizing that some mistakes were in the order contained in memo no. 5404 dated 5.7.2013, the same was rectified vide order dated 21.10.2013 contained in memo no. 7909. By the modification of the order, the claim of the petitioner has been accepted and the employment unit i.e. Gram Panchayat Raj Kiratpur Rajaram, Block Bhagwanpur has been directed to comply the direction of the learned District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal” In support of the aforementioned stand he has also enclosed a copy of his order dated 21.10.2013 which is quoted hereinbelow: ^^dk;kZy; vkns’k ftyk f’k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkf/kdkj] oS’kkyh ds okn la[;k&DMJS-12/11 Jh y{ehdkUr I;kjsyky ouke lfpo] iapk;r f’k{kd fu;kstu bdkbZ] xzke iapk;r jkt] fdjriqj jktkjke] iz[k.M&Hkxokuiqj es a izkf/kdkj ds vkns’k Kkikad 33] fnukad 20-03-2013 ds vkyksd esa v/kksgLrk{kjh }kjk dk;kZyh; vkns’k Kkikad 5404] fnukad 05-07-2013 ikfjr fd;k x;k gSa …d‰ mijkasDr vkns’k ds vfUre dafMdk esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd iz/kku lfpo] f’k{kk foHkkx iVuk ds i=kad 1475] fnukad 04-12- 2010 ds }kjk fn;s x;s funs’k ds vkyksd es a iapk;r f’k{kd ds ekeys esa fnuakd 29-12-2010 ,oa 30-12-2010 ds i’pkr~ fn;k x;k fu;kstu i= oS/k ugha gksxkA bl izdkj oknh Jh y{ehdkUr I;kjsyky dk fu;kstu foHkkxh; izko/kkuqlkj oRrZeku ifjfLFkfr esa ugaha fd;k tk ldsxkA …2‰ mijksDr vkns’k dafMdk esa iz/kku lfpo] f’k{kk foHkkx] iVuk ds mYysf[kr vkns’k dh O;k[;k ;qfDr ;qDr u gksdj vyx <ax ls gks x;h gSa mDr vkns’k iapk;r fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk o"kZ 2008 ds Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 9 fu;kstu ds rgr u;s fu;qfDr i=ksa dks fuxZr djus ds lanHkZ esa FkkA fu;ksftr gks x;s f’k{kdksa dh oS/krk ;k voS/krk ds dze esa izkf/kdkj }kjk ikfjr vkns’k ds fdz;kUo;u ds laca/k eas ;g vkns’k voS/k ?kksf"kr fu;kstu ds cnys oS/k f’k{kds ds fu;qfDr i= fn;s tkus dks izHkkfor ugha djrk gSA …4‰ dafMdk ^^3** esa mYysf[kr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa v/kksgLrk{kjh Lrj ls fuxZr iwoZ vkns’k Kkikad 5404] fnukad 05-07-2013 esa vkaf’kd la’kks/ku djrs gq, dafMdk ^^5** esa la’kksf/kr vkns’k ikfjr fd;k tkrk gSA …5‰ lanfHkZr okn esa f’k{kd fu;kstu vihyh; izkf/kdkj }kjk Kkikad 33] fnukad 20-03-2013 }kjk ikfjr vkns’k esa vkosnd Jh y{ehdkUr I;kjsyky ds vkosnu dks Lohd‘r djrs gq, Jh vjfoUn dqekj ds fu;kstu dks oS/k ugha ekuk x;k gSA vr% iapk;r f’k{kd fu;kstu bdkbZ xzke iapk;r jkt] fdjriqj jktkjke] iz[k.M&Hkoxokuiqj dks funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd izkf/kdkj }kjk ikfjr vkns’k ds vkyksd esa ,d i{k ds vUnj fu;kstu bdkbZ dh cSBd vkgwr dj izkf/kdkj ds vkns’k dk vuqikyu lqfuf’pr djsaA g0@& …’kf’k Hkw"k.k jk;‰ ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh oS’kkyhA Kkikad 7909 @ gkthiqj fnukad 21-10-13** As noted above, the Tribunal had directed the District Education Officer to take the resultant steps but then the District Education Officer initially went to question the order of the Tribunal. That however was not permissible but now when the District Education Officer has left the matter in the hand of the recruiting unit i.e. Panchayat for implementing the order of the Tribunal, a question would arise as to what recruiting unit will do Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 10 in view of the aforementioned half hearted and vague order of the Tribunal. It has to be kept in mind that the panels relied by the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal contains the name of as many as eight persons in which as per total merit points including experience he, i.e. the petitioner becomes the second candidate but if his experience certificate, whose authenticity is being questioned by Arvind Kumar is discounted, the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal will be relegated to 4th place. Keeping in view that the petitioner Arvind Kumar also claims to be having 52.2% marks by way of qualification and 20 marks for his experience, which would bring him above Rajendra Paswan, Ajay Kumar Prasad, Randhir Kumar and Amaresh Kumar Paswan, this Court would find it difficult to issue a direction for appointment of the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal on the strength of the order of the Tribunal which, as noted above, has not really gone into all the relevant issues and has also not conclusively issued any direction for appointment of the petitioner Lakshmikant pyarelal. In such circumstances, when the dispute remains unresolved, this Court would quash the order passed by the Tribunal dated 20.3.2013 (Annexure 10 to C.W.J.C.No. 17404/2013) and remit the matter back to the Tribunal for Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 11 deciding the Case No. DMJS-12/11 afresh. The District Education Officer, Vaishali, who is present in Court, is hereby directed to ensure that all the relevant records relating to selection and appointment of the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal, Arvind Kumar as well as Sudarshan Kumar Paswan, Vidyanand Kumar, Manoj Kumar, Rajendra Paswan, Randhir Kumar, Amresh Kumar Paswan, as is available in his office, is produced by him before the Tribunal. If any more document will be required by the Tribunal and which is not available in the office of the District Education Officer it will be duty of the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kiratpur Rajaram, Block Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali (respondent no.8) to produce them so that the Tribunal comes to its finding on the basis of documents. Let it be made clear that since there is an objection with regard to validity of the experience certificate of the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal, an aspect which is sought to be canvassed by the learned counsel for Arvind Kumar, the Tribunal will also go into the issue of award of 20 marks to the candidates named above including the petitioner and respondent no.10 (Arvind Kumar). The Tribunal would therefore also examine as to whether 20 additional points claimed by the candidates by way of experience was admissible to them as per the Rules. Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 12 In view of the fact that the services of Arvind Kumar has already been terminated and he definitely does not have a better case on merit, inasmuch as there are at least three candidates who are said to have higher marks with experience, this Court cannot direct for reinstatement of Arvind Kumar during the pendency of the matter before the Tribunal. Thus, Arvind Kumar by virtue of quashing of the order of the Tribunal will not be reinstated till the Tribunal upholds that the validity of appointment of Arvind Kumar. It also goes without saying that if the Tribunal restores the appointment of Arvind Kumar after considering all the aspects and after giving opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioner Lakshmikant Pyarelal and Arvind Kumar but also the aforementioned persons, Arvind Kumar will not only be entitled for reinstatement but also for payment of salary for the period he had to remain out of service on account of the earlier order passed by the Tribunal. On the other hand, if the Tribunal re-affirms its view with regard to illegality in the appointment of Arvind Kumar, he will neither be entitled for reinstatement nor for payment of salary beyond what has already been paid to him. This exercise however must be completed by the Tribunal within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. Patna High Court CWJC No.17404 of 2013 (5) dt.21-11-2013 13 This Court would also drop the matter against Mr. Shashi Bhushan Rai, the District Education Officer, Vaishali for the time being but he should remain careful in future while dealing with the order of the Court/ Tribunal. With the aforementioned observations and directions, this
Decision
application is disposed of. The personal appearance of the District Education Officer, Vaishali is dispensed with. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-