Lalita Kumari v. The State Of Bihar & Ors.

For the State : Mr. G. K. Agarwal, GA 10 Mr S. K. Jha, AC to GA 10 For the Respondent 5 : Mr Baidya Nath Thakur, Advocate Mr Shankar Kr. Thakur, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI ORAL ORDER 4 22-01-2013 When the writ application was filed by the petitioner she wanted a direction upon the respondent authorities to honour the order contained in Annexure-3 which was passed by the Block Development Officer, Baheri. While the writ was pending, further developments took place in the sense that the private respondent, namely, Gita Kumari, had also approached the High Court seeking quashing of the said order passed by the BDO, of whose enforcement petitioner was seeking. CWJC No.11501 of 2008 filed by Gita Kumari was also disposed of on 17.3.2009 with a Patna High Court CWJC No.16251 of 2008 (4) dt.22-01-2013 direction to get the matter decided by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal. Matter was heard by the Tribunal and decided on 11.8.2009. In this background, IA No.7567 of 2009 was filed seeking an additional prayer or prayer for quashing the order of the Tribunal, which refused to quash the appointment of Gita Kumari, which has the effect of ousting the petitioner from any hope of seeking employment under the State. IA No.7567 had already been allowed earlier. Therefore, the primary issue, which is required to be decided now, is not the first prayer of enforcement of the BDO’s order but the validity of the decision rendered by the Tribunal. Counsel for the petitioner assails the order of the Tribunal on the ground that all verification of records had already been done earlier where the petitioner had produced her certificates etc. and there was no occasion for a second counseling or verification, which was made the reason for offering employment to the private respondent, Gita Kumari, at the cost of the petitioner and contrary to the findings, which had emerged in the inquiry held by the BDO. In fact, the stage for issuance of letter of consent had reached but a case was sought to be made out that the petitioner was given information about fresh counseling only to declare her name to be unentertainable due to her absence Patna High Court CWJC No.16251 of 2008 (4) dt.22-01-2013 and, therefore, a right was created for appointment of Gita Kumari. The Court may not like to get into details of another set of litigation, which emerged from the present proceeding initiated at the level of the BDO and thereafter, the Appellate Authority because serious contest was made with regard to the information or communication relating to the counseling and the signature of the petitioner appended thereto, which has been brought on record by the private respondent in her counter affidavit as Annexure- 5/4. Petitioner had filed an FIR alleging that her signature has been forged on the document for obvious reasons. That matter was investigated on institution of the FIR. After obtaining some technical opinion of the handwriting expert, the police found the case to be false. A final form was submitted which was protested by the petitioner in a protest petition filed before the CJM, The protest petition was never pursued despite several adjournments and the same stood dismissed without further action being taken thereto. Taking cue from these aspects of the matter, counsel for the private respondent in the counter affidavit has taken a stand that the institution of the FIR was an effort to cover up the factum of the petitioner not participating and responding to the first phase Patna High Court CWJC No.16251 of 2008 (4) dt.22-01-2013 of employment carried out by the Panchayat because she was looking for employment somewhere closer to the Panchayat where her husband was already employed and only when she failed to get employment there, she has raised a bogey of discrimination and arbitrariness on the part of the appointing authorities. The private respondent has explained by annexing Annexure- 5 series from where it would emerge that the period when the counseling was supposed to be done would be clear by perusal of Annexure- 5/3. The timeframe indicated in the said order obtained by the said private respondent with the signature of all the appointing members is 22.3.2007 to 31.3.2007.Against the name of the present petitioner, the entry is “Anupasthit” meaning absent. Failure of the petitioner to respond to Annexure- 5/4 led the appointing committee to constitute yet another round of counseling, which was the third round where the name of the private respondent appeared. Since the person on the merit list at serial no.1 did not appear, private respondent was appointed. After all this is what the Tribunal had held and found after hearing the parties. If this is the background then the stand taken by the petitioner that counseling had already been held earlier and Patna High Court CWJC No.16251 of 2008 (4) dt.22-01-2013 certificate etc. was verified is not borne out by other circumstantial evidence available on record. The petitioner has also chosen to be absolutely silent on the statement made in paragraph 6, which has not been denied by the petitioner, which may have a reflection as to the reason why the petitioner did not appear for the counseling despite information and receipt of information. In the totality, therefore, no case is made out for interference with the order of the Tribunal. The Tribunal has rightly upheld the appointment of Gita Kumari in the above circumstances and no case for interference thereof is required to be made. Writ has no merit. It is dismissed. (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J)