SHAMS TABREZ v. THE STATE OF BIHAR

Patna High Court CWJC No.2737 of 2010 (4) dt.01-03-2012 2 no. 11, being present in course of counselling is an error of record. In this regard, he has placed reliance on Annexure-2/A to show that the name of respondent no. 11 does not find place in the list of the candidates present during the course of counseling. Anticipating that the respondents may utilize Annexure-2 filed by the petitioner himself showing the respondent no. 11 to be present in course of counseling, he has sought to prempt such submission by taking a plea that Annexure-2 was only the merit list and not the records of counselling. Mr. Anjani Kumar, learned A.A.G-X appearing on behalf of the State and Mrs. Anita Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 11, on the other hand, would submit that the Authority has committed no error of record and in fact Annexure-2 by itself would be an evidence of the fact that respondent no.

11 was present in the course of counselling and was sought to be displaced by the petitioner at the initiative of one Anil Kumar Sharma, Panchayat Secretary, who infact had got created another record of counselling to dislodge respondent no. 11 and Patna High Court CWJC No.2737 of 2010 (4) dt.01-03-2012 3 other similarly situated better candidates. They have also explained that whatever be the little difference in their merit, the respondent no. 11 having higher marks than the petitioner was a better candidate and eventually the decision of the Authority in favour of respondent no. 11 by displacing the petitioner from the post of Panchayat Teacher does not suffer from any error so as to be interfered by this Court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the tribunal’s finding as with regard to the presence of respondent no.

11 in course of counselling to the following effect:- pwafd iapk;r lfpo }kjk dk; Zokgh iath esa x;klq Z jgeku dk fu; kstu u djus ds dkj.k dk ft(cid:216) ugha fd;k x;k gSa ijUrq iapk;r f” k{kd fu; kstu] 2006 ds dkmflafyax iath ds Øekad 28 ij x;klqZ jgeku dk uke ntZ gS rFkk Jh jgeku th }kjk gLrk{kj Hkh vafdr fd;k x;k gS] tcfd iapk;r lfpo us vius C;ku esa vafdr fd;k gS fd fnukad 10-3-2007 dks lR;kiu esa Jh x;klqZ jgeku vuqifLFkr FksA stands also substantiated by the document filed by the petitioner himself as contained in Annexure-2 with a noting of the authorities Patna High Court CWJC No.2737 of 2010 (4) dt.01-03-2012 4 as with regard to the signature of respondent no. 11 along with the papers produced by him in course of counselling, there would be little left for holding that the finding recorded by District Teacher’s Appellate Authority as with regard to the presence of respondent no. 11 in the process of counselling does not suffer from any error of record.

This Court however must record that Annexure-2 and Annexure-2/A are two different documents with conflicting claims but it is the finding of the Authority (Tribunal) that Anil Kumar Sharma, the Panchayat Secretary had created such false documents to oust a better meritorious candidate like respondent no. 11. Learned A.A.G-X is therefore correct in pointing out that the Tribunal in fact has also noted such misconduct on the part of Anil Kumar Sharma while directing the same to be made a subject matter of disciplinary proceeding as also recorded by the Sub- divisional Officer. Once this Court would therefore, find that respondent no. 11 was not only present in the process of counseling but was a better candidate on merits having secured 73.58 per cent marks as against 73.08 Patna High Court CWJC No.2737 of 2010 (4) dt.01-03-2012 5 per cent marks of the petitioner, there would be little left for this Court but to approve the order passed by the Authority (Tribunal) holding the appointment of petitioner to be bad and its being substituted by respondent no. 11, a better candidate on merit. That being so, this Court does not find any error in the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority West Champaran and accordingly, this application being devoid of any merit must be and is hereby dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)