Rupa Kumari v. The State of Bihar

: Mr. Suraj Narayan Yadav, Advocate. Mr. Arbind Kumar, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Chandra Sekhar Singh, AC to GP 16 For the Respondent No. 8: Mr. Dhananjay Kumar Tiwari, Advocate. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 10-12-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed an order dated 9.10.2012 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Supaul (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Case No. 9 of 2010 whereby and whereunder her case for being appointed and/or continued on the post of 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.21482 of 2012 (2) dt.10-12-2013 Panchayat Teacher has been rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once the Tribunal had come to a finding that there was a counselling held on 28.02.2009 in course of which though the petitioner had appeared but the private respondent no.

8 had not appeared; it had no option except upholding the appointment of the petitioner because a person, who was not present in course of the counselling, cannot lay claim for being appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. In this regard he has also placed reliance on the extract of the counselling register showing such counselling to have been held on 28.02.2009. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has supported the finding of the Tribunal and is of the view that the respondent no. 8, being a better candidate on merit and belonging to same category as the petitioner, could not have been ignored for facilitating the appointment of the petitioner who had definitely lesser marks than the respondent no. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, any emphasis on the earlier counselling held on 28.02.2009 by the learned counsel the petitioner is wholly misconceived. The Government order was very clear that appointment which were not made till 28.2.2009 could not be made on the basis of a counselling held on 28.02.2009.

As per government decision a fresh counselling was to be held and the Government itself had published in the newspaper the date of 14.8.2010 for such counselling for Panchayat Teacher. The finding of the Tribunal in this background becomes important wherein it has been held that on 14.08.2010 no counselling was conduced and yet the petitioner was appointed on 14.08.2010. The respondent no. 8 had infact immediately filed her protest and also the complaint before the 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.21482 of 2012 (2) dt.10-12-2013 Tribunal within five days of the appointment of the petitioner. The concept of counselling, in fact, seems to be wholly misunderstood by the authorities. The rule of appointment of a Panchayat Teacher envisages the filing of an application, its screening followed by preparation of a draft merit list and deciding of objections leading to publication of final merit list. From this final list, as per the vacancy available, the candidates have to be called for their selection and appointment.

In the present case, there is a finding of the Tribunal fresh final merit list was not prepared and therefore whatever was done by way of alleged counselling on 28.02.2009 was not valid in the eye of law. It is this aspect of the matter, which has been gone at length by the Tribunal in the impugned order, the relevant portion whereof reads as follows: ^^voyksduksijkUr ,slk izrhr gksrk gS fd fookn dk ewy fcUnw gS dkSUflafyax eas okfnuh dh mifLFkfrA iz’u ;gh djuk gS fd iwuZokfnuh iwue dqekjh fnukad 28-02-09 dks vk; ksftr dkSuflfyax eas mifLFkr Fkh ;k ughaA mRrjokfnx.k ds fo}ku vf/koDrkx.k dk dguk gS fd iquZokfnuh dgh vU;= fu; kstu dk iz; kl dj jgh Fkh ijUrq ml LFkku ij lQyrk ugha feyus ds dkj.k bl iap;r esa iz; kljr dh xbZ gSA ijUrq ;g dikSy dfYir ckr gS D;ksafd bl vk’k; dk dkbZ izek.k i= ugha izLrqr fd;k x;k gSA fu; ekuqdwy dkSuflafyax ds ckn dksbZ es/kk lwph dk izdk’ku ugha gqvk FkkA QyLo:i yksxksa dk tkudkjh ugha fey ldhA dkSuflafyax esa dkQh yEch vof/k ds ckn fu; kstu dh izfdz;k viukbZ xbZ gSa foHkkxh; i= ds vkyksd esa fnukad 14-0-10 dks dkSuflafyaxz djds lgefr i= izkIr dj fu; kstu i= nsuk FkkA iquZokfnuh ds }kjk izLrqr vusdska lk{; ls izrhr gksrk gS fd fnukad 14-08-10 dks Hkh dkSuflafyax gksuk Fkk ftldh ppkZ dk; Zokgh ith esa vafdr ugha gS cfYd dkSuflafyax esa mifLFkr vH;FkhZ dks fu; kstu i= nsus dh ppkZ gSA tc iquZokfnuh ds }kjk 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.21482 of 2012 (2) dt.10-12-2013 eqf[k;k@iapk;r lfpo ds le{k viuh ckrksa dks j[kk rks de ls de dk; Zokgh iqfLrdk esa oks bl ij fVIi.kh vafdr gksuk pkfg, Fkk fd D;ksa bls fu; kstu ls oafpr fd;k x;k gSA fnukad 14-08-10 dks Fkh dkSuflafyax fu; er% djuk FkkA dk; Zokgh iqfLrdk ds voyksdu ls izrhr gksrk gS fd ml jkst dkSuflafyax ugha gqvkA iquZokfnuh iwue dqekjh mlh fnu ojh; inkf/kdkjh ds le{k viuk vkifRr nk;j fd;k FkkA rnqijkUr egt 5 jkst ds ckn izkf/kdkj esa iquokZn nk;j dj fu; kstu dks dj nh FkhA ;g lkfcr djrk gS fd iquZokfnuh vius gd ds izfr tkXk:d ,oa lfdz; FkhA Tgka rd 28-02-2009 ds dkSuflafyax dh ckr gS rks vxj iquZokfnuh dks tky@Qjso djus dk iz’u gS rks ;g rFkdfFkr tkyh izkIr jlhn dks vk/kkj cukdj rRdky ojh; inkf/kdkjh ds le{k vkifRr ntZ djuh Fkh mldk dkSuflafyax ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,oa dkjZokbZ gsrq vuqjks/k dj ldrh FkhA ;g dkSuflafyax oks fnu mlesa lfEefyr gksdj izek.k i= tek dj izkfIr jlhn izkIr dj larq"V gksdj pyh xbZZ gksxhA nwljh ckr fopkj.kh; gS fd f’k{kd fu; kstu dh izfdz;k iwjh djus gsrq foHkkx ls izekf.kr jftLVj vkiwfRrZ dh xbZ FkhA mlh esa vkosnu i= vafdr djuk Fkk] es/kk lwph cukuk Fkk dkSuflafyaax Hkh djuk Fkk rFkk Hkh vafdr djuk FkkA ijUrq dkSuflafyax fdlh vU; lk/kkj.k esa fd;k x;k gSa iath lquokbZ ds le; izLrqr fd;k Fkk tks ns[kus esa rjksrktk yxrk Fkk ,oa mlesa vafdr v{kj Hkh ,slk ugha] izrhr gksrk Fkk fd iqjkuk fy[kk gqvk gSa tcfd vU; jftLVj ,oa mldk fy[kkoV iqjkuk yxrk gSA izekf.kr djrk gS fd dkSuflafyax iath esa dqN xM+cM+h gSa ;g xM+cM+h iwuZokfnuh dks uke gVkus ds fu;e ls gh dh xbZ izrhr gksrk gSA foHkkx }kjk vkifrZ iath esa dkSuflafyax ugha gksuk vius vki esa xM+cM+h izekf.kr djrk gSA mi; qZDr foospukvkasa ij lE;d :i ls fopkj djus ij bl fu"d"kZ ij igqapk gwW fd iquZokfnuh ique dqekjh dkSuflafyax esa mifLFkr FkhA fnukad 14-08-10 dks Hkh mifLFkr FkhA blfy, budk p;u gsrq fopkj djuk pkfg, FkkA 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.21482 of 2012 (2) dt.10-12-2013 bl iapk;r esa vfr fiNM+k oxZ efgyk dksfV esa jftLVj ds vuq:i 02 in miyC//k FkkA iquZokfnuh ique dqekjh ftudk es/kk vad 63-44% gSaA mRrjokfnuh la0 4 eerk dqekjh dks 62-44% ,oa mRrjokfnuh laa- 5 :ik dqekjh dks 60-66% gSaA rhuksa gh vR;Ur fiNM+h tkfr efgyk dksfV dh vF;FkhZ gSa dnkfi eerk dqekjh dk es/kk vad dbZ LFkkuksa ij 66-44 izfr’kr vafdr gSa ftlesa muds fo}ku vf/koDrk xyr djkj fn;s gSA vr,o jksLVj ds vuq:i ek= nks dk gh fu; kstu gksuk gSA vr% es/kk vad ds vk/kkj ij izFke LFkku ij iquZokfnuh ique dqekjh ,oa nqljs LFkku ij mRrjokfnuh la0 4 eerk dqekjh Afu; ksftrA dk nkok curk gSa bl izdkj :ik dqekjh dh fu; qfDr jn~n gksus ;ksX; gSA vr,o mijksdr rF;ksa ij fopkj.k ,oa fo’ys"k.k ls ;g fu"d"kZ fudyrk gS fd iquZokfnuh iwue dqekjh dk nkok lgh gSA vr,o v/;{k lg eqf[k;k@lfpo lg iapk;r lfpo xzke iapk;r csyk flaxkj xksrh dks funs’k fn;k tkrk gS fd :ik dqekjh ifr Jh ftrsUnz dqekj dk fu; kstu jn~n dj fjfDr ds izFke LFkku ij ique dqekjh firk misUnz eaMy dk fu; kstu djus gsrq fof/kor dkjZokbZ djsaA eerk dqekjh dk fu; kstu nwljk in ij cjdjkj j[ksaxsA ijUrq budk ’kS{kf.kd izek.k i= dk lR;kiu djkus ds mijkUr gh budk osru dk Hkqxrku djsaxsaA^^ This Court, in fact, does not find any error in the aforementioned finding of the Tribunal specially when it is not in dispute that the petitioner, having only 60.66% marks as against the respondent no.

8 having 63.44% marks, could not have been offered appointment so as to deny the benefit of appointment to a more meritorious candidate. Such impugned order of Tribunal, therefore, does not require any interference of this Court. This writ application is, accordingly, dismissed. Sujit/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)