Kirti Kumari v. The State Of Bihar

Patna High Court CWJC No.8515 of 2010 (8) dt.17-12-2013 2 the Tribunal for resolution thereof. That is how Appeal nos. 769 of 2009 and 1073 of 2009 were instituted and a common order was passed which has been impugned in the present writ application. Process of selection and appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher (for short “PT”) was undertaken by the Selection Committee of the Gram Panchayat Raj North Dhamaun within Patori Block in the district of Samastipur. Petitioner became an applicant for the post of PT under EBC(F) category. The Respondent no. 9 was also an applicant. A merit list (Medha Suchi) as per percentage of marks obtained by applicants/candidates at the Intermediate level examination was published wherein the Respondent no. 9 figured at Sl. No. 1 having secured 69.4% of marks. The writ petitioner was placed below the Respondent no. 9 having secured 56.1 % at the Intermediate level examination. According to the petitioner, after finalization of the merit list, counseling of the candidates was scheduled on 24.2.2007 for which notices were given to the candidates/applicants. The Respondent no. 9 did not appear thereat and the writ petitioner was selected and the letter of appointment was issued to her on 9.3.2007 (Annexure-1). The Respondent no. 9 raised a grievance thereagainst before the concerned authorities Patna High Court CWJC No.8515 of 2010 (8) dt.17-12-2013 3 alleging therein that she was clandestinely not allowed to participate in the counseling in order to select the writ petitioner although she was present for such counseling. On such allegation/grievance raised by Respondent no. 9, the District Magistrate directed the Block Development Officer, Patori (the Competent Authority) enquire allegations/complaint. The Block Development Officer, Patori enquired into the said allegation/grievance of the Respondent no. 9 and submitted a report finding substance in the allegation of the Respondent no. 9. The appointment of the writ petitioner and four others was cancelled under the orders of the Block Development Officer. On 22.6.2007, the Block Development Officer directed for fresh selection/appointment of the eligible candidates under the supervision of a government official. Accordingly, as per the merit list, a fresh counseling for selection and appointment of PT was held on 30.6.2007 for the trained candidates and 6.7.2007 for the untrained candidates like the petitioner and the Respondent no. 9. The Respondent no. 9 after such counseling was selected for appointment in the category to which writ petitioner belongs since the Respondent no. 9 had secured higher marks than the writ petitioner in the Intermediate level examination which, as per the rule/provision, is the yardstick. This time, the writ petitioner raised Patna High Court CWJC No.8515 of 2010 (8) dt.17-12-2013 4 a grievance before the authorities alleging therein that the Respondent no. 9 could not have appeared in the second counselling since she had defaulted in appearing at the first counseling. It was also alleged that the Selection Committee for the purpose of second counseling had not issued any notice to Respondent no. 9 and, as such, the Respondent no. 9 could not have appeared at the second counseling. Her selection and appointment is, therefore, bad in law. It was also alleged that the appointment of the Respondent no. 9 was never placed before and approved by the Selection Committee. The matter was referred to the Tribunal which had, in the meanwhile, come into existence for resolution of the dispute. The Tribunal on a consideration of the matter found no illegality in the selection and appointment of Respondent no. 9 who had secured higher marks than the writ petitioner. The Tribunal further found that in the merit list, the Respondent no. 9 figured at Sl. No. 1. She was present for the counseling but was deliberately not allowed to participate therein and the writ petitioner was selected. A grievance in this regard was promptly raised by Respondent no. 9 before the Authority whereafter an inquiry was made by the Block Development Officer, Patori who found substance in the said allegation and accordingly, the selection of the candidates made after such Patna High Court CWJC No.8515 of 2010 (8) dt.17-12-2013 5 counseling held on 24.3.2007 was cancelled. No issue in this regard was raised by the writ petitioner. The Block Development Officer thereafter directed for fresh counseling of both trained and untrained applicants/candidates under strict supervision of the authority. The petitioner as well as the Respondent no. 9 appeared in the second counseling and obviously the Respondent no. 9 was preferred and selected who had secured higher percentage of marks than the writ petitioner. It has been contended on behalf of the petitioner that Respondent no. 9 could not have appeared in the said counseling particularly when no notice was directed to be issued to her. Such stand is taken relying on the proceeding of the Selection Committee wherein fresh notices was directed to be issued to the candidates/applicants wherein name of the Respondent no. 9 does not figure. It has also been contended that a candidate who had not presented himself/herself at the first counseling could not have appeared in the second counseling. The contention of the petitioner appears to be misplaced/misconceived. On complaint of Respondent no. 9, an enquiry was made by the Block Development Officer and the allegations levelled by her was found correct. In other words, the respondent Block Development Officer found substance in the allegation of Respondent no. 9 that Patna High Court CWJC No.8515 of 2010 (8) dt.17-12-2013 6 she was under a design not allowed to participate in the counseling. On the said complaint of Respondent no. 9, the Block Development Officer had directed for fresh counseling of the candidates/applicants under supervision of an officer of the government. The fact that Respondent no. 9 participated in the second counseling is not disputed by the petitioner. On the contrary, it has been submitted that since the Respondent no. 9 had not participated in the first counseling, she was ineligible to participate the second counseling. In facts and circumstances of the case and in absence of any such provision contained in the relevant Rule governing the appointment, the said contention of the petitioner appears to be entirely misconceived. It has also been submitted that the appointment letter in favour of Respondent no. 9 had been issued by the Panchayat Secretary only and not by the Mukhiya. The said contention is also fit to be rejected. The Executive Officer of the Gram Panchayat is the Panchayat Secretary. The Mukhiya heads the Selection Committee. The order of appointment is, therefore required to be issued under the hand and seal of the Panchayat Secretary. It has also been urged that the selection/appointment of Respondent no. 9 has not been approved by the Selection Committee. In view of the facts noticed hereinabove and the findings recorded by the Patna High Court CWJC No.8515 of 2010 (8) dt.17-12-2013 7 Tribunal in the impugned order, the said contention of the petitioner is also fit to be rejected. Regard being had to above, this Court finds that the petitioner has failed to demonstrate any patent illegality in the consideration of the matter by the Tribunal under the impugned order dated 20.4.2010 passed in Appeal nos. 769 of 2009 and 1073 of 2009 meriting interference. The writ application is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Pankaj/- (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)