District Teacher Employment (Niyozan) Appellate Tribunal Jamui v. Through Its Member
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.1839 of 2012 ====================================================== Subhadra Kumari D/O Saryu Mandal Resident Of Village Dhapri, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s 1. The State Of Bihar Through District Education Officer, Jamui 2. District Education Officer, Jamui 3. District Teacher Employment (Niyozan) Appellate Tribunal Jamui, Versus Through Its Member 4. Member, District Teacher Niyozan Appellate Tribunal, Jamui 5. Block Development Officer, Jhajha 6. Incharge Head Master, Upgraded Middle School, Khuri Paras, Jhajha, Jamui 7. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Jamu Kharaiya, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 8. Panchayat Secretary (Employment Officer), Gram Panchayat Raj, Jamu Khariaya, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 9. Mina Kumari W/O Gore Lal Saw Resident Of Village & P.O. Dabil, P.S. Khaira, Dist. Jamui 10. Satdeo Mandal Son Of Nuneshwar Mandal Resident Of Rani Kura, P.S. Jhajha, Dist. Jamui 11. Seema Kumari Singh W/O Pankaj Kumar Singh Resident Of Village Ninjawara, P.S. Gidhaur, Dist. Jamui
Legal Reasoning
This Court, therefore, having considered all aspects of the matter, must come to an unequivocal conclusion, as was arrived at by the Tribunal also that the appointment of the petitioner had been vitiated by fraud and was rightly interfered by the Tribunal. Thus, this Court would not find any merit in this writ application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. If the petitioner is continuing in service on the ground of interim order passed by this Court on 30.1.2012, she must be removed forthwith and the respondent no.9 on verification of her certificates must be appointed within a period of one month from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-
Arguments
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance For the Petitioner : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Singh, Advocate Mr. Neeraj Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. P. Tekriwal (G.A.-1) For Respondent no. 9 : Mr. Prakash Mehta, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 8 22-08-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following reliefs prayed for in this writ application:- "That by way of this writ petition petitioner challenges and disputes the legality and validity of order dated 7.4.11 passed by Id. Member, District Teacher Niyozan Appellate Tribunal, Jamui (Herein after stated as Tribunal), contained in memo Patna High Court CWJC No.1839 of 2012 (8) dt.22-08-2013 2 no. 196/Jamui, passed jointly in three cases vide Case No. 25/10' Case No. 328/10, and Case No. 43/10 (preferred by three persons namely Mina Kumari (Respondent No. 9) Satdeo Mandal (Respondent no. 10) Seema Kumari Singh (Respondent no. 11) respectively), behind the back of this petitioner, whereby and whereunder Ld. Tribunal has ordered for examining the experience certificate of respondent no. 9, and if it is found matching to the eligibility criteria, cancel the Niyozan of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher, and appoint her (respondent no. 9) in place of this petitioner." The Tribunal on appreciation of relevant records while adjudicating a complaints filed by Respondent no. 9, 10 and 11 described as 1st, 2nd and 3rd applicants respectively as against appointment of the petitioner has arrived at following findings : ^^ekeys dh lquokbZ izkjaHk dh xbZA iapk;r lfpo mifLFkr gwq, vkSj tkudkjh nh dh foHkkx }kjk fu;kstu gsrq dqy pkj in fn;k x;k Fkk ftlesa U.R.F. ;w0 vkj0 ,Q0 ,d bZ0 ch0 lh0 ,d vkSj ch0 lh0 ,Q0 ,d ds fy, in vkjf{kr gS ftlij dze’k% [kseu iz0 ;kno es/kk vad 73-66 ;’kksnk dqekjh es/kk vad 78- 88 ljkst dqekjh 78 lqHknzk dqekjh 65-86 dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k gSA oknh ,d dkmfUlfyax ds le; vuqHko izek.k i= ls lacaf/kr ekuns; Hkqxrku laca/kh lk{; ugha nsus ds dkj.k dkmfUlfyax ugha gks ldka oknh nks dk bUVjfefM,V izek.k i= n lsUVzy cksBZ vkWQ gk;j ,Stqds’ku ubZ fnYyh dk gS bl fy, budk fu;kstu ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;kA oknh rhu ds laca/k esa dgk x;k fd fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk oknh ls vf/kd es/kk vad/kkjh ;’kksnk dqekjh es/kk vad 78-88 Patna High Court CWJC No.1839 of 2012 (8) dt.22-08-2013 3 dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k tcfd oknh dk es/kk vad 65-33 gSA mijksDr rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk oknh rhu ls vf/kd es/kk vad okys dk fu;kstu djus ds vk/kkj ij rFkk oknh 2 ds izek.k i= dh ekU;rk iz/kku lfpo ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx ds Kkikad 998 fnukad 05-08-10 }kjk n lsUVzy oksMZ vkWQ gk;j ,stqds’ku ubZ fnYyh dh ekU;rk ugha nh xbZ gSa bu rF;ksa ds vk/kkj ij oknh nks ,oa rhu ds nkos dks [kkfjt fd;k tkrk gSa oknh ,d ds laca/k esa leqfpr lk{; izkIr djsa ;fn mudk vuqHko izek.k i= foHkkxh; fu;eksa ds vuqdqy gksrk gS rks muls de es/kk vad/kkjh fu;ksftr f’kf{kdk ’kqHknzk dqekjh es/kk vad 65-86 ds fu;kstu dks jn~n dj mlds LFkku ij oknh dk fu;ksftr djus ds laca/kh ekeys ij fopkj djsaA** Learned Counsel for the petitioner has basically concentrated the Respondent no. 9 was not entitled for weightage and thus the inclusion the name of the petitioner in the merit list above Respondent no. 9 and her consequential appointment should not have been reopened by the Tribunal. This Court, however having perused the uncontroverted merit list and panel as contained in Annexure-A to the counter affidavit of Respondent no. 9 wherein the name of the petitioner has been clearly inserted between the name of two candidates, is fully satisfied that the Tribunal has committed no error in holding the appointment of the petitioner to be vitiated by malafide and fraud. Such a person could not have been allowed to continue in service. Patna High Court CWJC No.1839 of 2012 (8) dt.22-08-2013 4 The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the private respondent no.9 had not appeared in counseling has to be only understood in the manner in which the petitioner was sought to be favoured for her appointment. The name of the petitioner was in the list of category of Unreserved Female for which there was a separate vacancy. The name of the petitioner was inserted in the panel of un-reserved female category between Sanju Kumari and Sima Kumari Singh at serial no. 20. In fact, all the serial numbers thereafter were changed in order to accommodate the insertion of the petitioner. On the other hand, the name of the respondent no.9 had figured as first candidate of the merit list of Backward Category Female Candidate. As a matter of fact, if for sake of arguments this Court would believe that the petitioner’s name was there in the panel even then there were many more candidates other than the respondent no.9 who had higher marks in the merit list of the candidates of the Backward Category Female, namely, Yashoda Kumari, Kiran Kumari, Bipita Kumari Mayuri, Anju Devi, Rekha Kumari, Kumari Bandana, Kumari Chandra Prabha Bharti, Renu Kumari, Priyanka Kumari, Supriya Kumari, Mridula Kumari and Neha Kumari having marks between 67% to 79.22% whereas the marks of the petitioner was only 65.89%. It is thus very difficult Patna High Court CWJC No.1839 of 2012 (8) dt.22-08-2013 5 for this Court to believe that all the aforesaid persons had not appeared in the counseling so as to facilitate the appointment of the petitioner.