Rubi Ranjan v. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar & Ors.

Learned counsel submits that the petitioner was an applicant for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in 2005. 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.13214 of 2012 (2) dt.02-08-2012 Her application was not properly considered and respondent nos. 9 and 10 appointed on basis of fraudulent certificates. In C.W.J.C. No. 6970 of 2007, liberty was granted to assail their appointments before the Tribunal. The Tribunal has erred in not terminating their appointment and directing consideration of the petitioner. The consequential prayer is therefore to reinstate the petitioner as a Panchayat Shikshak. Counsel the State has opposed application contending that the order of the Tribunal requires no interference. The posts of Shiksha Mitra no more exists. The petitioner cannot seek appointment on a non existing post. The Tribunal is the creation of a statutory order dated 25.8.2008. No appeal lies against its orders which are therefore final.

But since the orders are statutory in nature, they remain amenable to challenge under Article 226 of the Constitution. But this power of judicial review is not in the nature of an appellate Court. The jurisdiction has to be restricted on the well established grounds for judicial review over the order of a quasi judicial Tribunal. If there is an error in the decision making process, parties have not been heard, evidence has been admitted behind the back of the party, relevant materials produced have not been considered, contentions urged not dealt with are some of the grounds on interference may be done judicial review. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.13214 of 2012 (2) dt.02-08-2012 Conversely, if an order is perverse arriving at a conclusion in which no reasonable person would have done on the same material or if there is wrong application of the principles of law, judicial review may still be invoked.

The findings of fact by the Tribunal have to be given finality unless assailed on the aforesaid grounds. Questions not urged before the Tribunal cannot be raised at the stage of judicial review to set aside an order of the Tribunal on a ground to which it may have had no occasion to apply its mind. The petitioner was an applicant for the post of Shiksha Mitra. The appointments were contractual in nature for a period of 11 months only. Thereafter they were to be renewed. Renewal was not automatic but dependent on a host of factors. It was an inchoate right which may have fructified or may not have fructified. If a candidate was not appointed as a Shiksha Mitra at the very initial stage and the question of renewal does not arise even, their exists even no inchoate right in such a candidate. If in the interregnum, the post itself stood abolished replaced by a new nomenclature, eligibility, modality and procedure for selection, no candidate for the post of Shiksha Mitra can contend that he/she has a vested right to be considered under the old law by amalgamating it with the new law.

The Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 promulgated on 1.7.2006 expressly provides in 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.13214 of 2012 (2) dt.02-08-2012 Rule-20 that those persons holding the post of Shiksha Mitra on the specified day would automatically acquire the status of a Panchayat Shikshak. This fiction of law is available only to those actually working. If the eligibility, modality and procedure for selection had changed from 1.7.2006, it is not possible to hold by a deemed fiction incorporating into the Rules what the legislature did not provide for to hold that nonetheless the status in 2003 which may not have matured would automatically stand revived from 1.7.2006. If the petitioner was not selected in 2005, her claim becomes infructuous on 1.7.2006. To that extent the Court finds no error in the order of the Tribunal. This view in C.W.J.C. No.

4332 of 2007 finds affirmation in L.P.A. No. 393 of 2008. The petitioner questioned the appointment of respondent nos. 9 and 10. The Tribunal notices that respondent no. 9 was removed on 13.5.2008 without a show cause notice. She had acquired the status of a Panchayat Shikshak on 1.7.2006. She questioned it in C.W.J.C No. 8710 of 2008. The order was set aside on grounds of violation of the principles of natural justice. She was reinstated on

19.8.2010. Her services were confirmed on 10.1.2011. The aforesaid discussion in the order of the Tribunal lead to a reasonable and prudent conclusion that after the Court set aside her appointment for violation of the principles of natural 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.13214 of 2012 (2) dt.02-08-2012 justice it came to be scrutinized by the authorities leading to confirmation of service on 10.1.2011. Otherwise, if the authorities were not satisfied they would have terminated her service again as the Court did not set aside the termination on merits. The order of the Tribunal does not reflect that the petitioner at any stage questioned the confirmation of the services of respondent no. 9 by order dated 10.1.2011 contending that no enquiry whatsoever had been held. The writ petition does not contend that any questions raised by her with regard to respondent no. 9 have not been considered by the Tribunal. It shall not be proper exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 in judicial review to reopen the aforesaid findings on basis of any fresh materials not urged before the Tribunal. Learned counsel for the petitioner insisted that the issue of fraudulent appointment of respondent no. 9 has been raised by her throughout but is unable to demonstrate from the present record that the petitioner had questioned before the Tribunal the subsequent action of the respondents in confirming her service on 10.1.2011. In so far as respondent no. 10 is concerned, the Tribunal has rightly given directions to conclude the examination of her certificates and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. The Court is also satisfied that the examination of the certificates of respondent no. 10 appears to have been kept pending by the respondents since long and it 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.13214 of 2012 (2) dt.02-08-2012 is time that the respondents conclude their enquiry within a maximum period of two months the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ application is dismissed with observations. P. Kumar/- (Navin Sinha, J)