Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3067 of 2011 ====================================================== Sohrab Hussain son of Sahadat Hussain resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar police station Jhajha, Jamui, .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director (Primary Education) Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Jamui 4. The District Superintendent of Education , Jamui 5. the Block Development Officer, Jhajha, Jamui 6. The Block Education Extension Officer Jhajha Jamui 7. The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority Jamui 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Rajala Kala Police Station Jhajha Jamui 9. The Panchayat Secretary Raj Rajala Kala Police Station Jhajha Jamui 10. Lakshmi Kumari wife of Shri Amar Nath Pandey resident of village Rajala Kala Police Station Jhajha Jamui .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3148 of 2011 ====================================================== Raj Kumar Yadav son of Shri Nageshwar Prasad Yadav resident of village Bhelbinda police station Jhajha, Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director (Primary Education) Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Jamui 4. The District Superintendent of Education , Jamui 5. The Block Development Officer, Jhajha, Jamui 6. The Block Education Extension Officer Jhajha Jamui 7. The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority Jamui 8. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Rajala Kala Police Station Jhajha Jamui
Legal Reasoning
9. The Panchayat Secretary Raj Rajala Kala Police Station Jhajha Jamui 10. Manoj Kumar Yadav, son of Shri Pawi Yadav resident of Penwajan police station Jhajha, Jamui .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3152 of 2011 ====================================================== Kumari Banmala wife of Shri Ajay Kant Jha resident of Mohalla Purani Bazar police station Jhajha, Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.3067 of 2011 (6) dt.09-12-2013 2 / 6 Versus 1 The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 2 The Director (Primary Education) Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3 The District Magistrate, Jamui 4 The District Superintendent of Education , Jamui 5 the Block Development Officer, Jhajha, Jamui 6 The Block Education Extension Officer Jhajha Jamui 7 The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority Jamui 8 The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Rajala Kala Police Station Jhajha Jamui 9 The Panchayat Secretary Raj Rajala Kala Police Station Jhajha Jamui 10 Sheela Devi wife of Shri Kumar Barun resident of village Barmasia Police Station Jhajha Jamui .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance: (In CWJC No.3067 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sagar Singh For the State : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra SC-21 For private respondent Mr. Surendra Kr. Verma (In CWJC No.3148 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sagar Singh For the State : Mr. Sanjay Kr No.1 SC-12 Mr.Vinod Kumar A.C. to SC-12 For the private respondent Mr. Radhe Shyam (In CWJC No.3152 of 2011) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sagar Singh For the State : Mr. Ashok Kr Choudhry SC-13 Mr. Rajesh Kr. Mishra A.C. to S.C. -7 For private respondent Mr. Jai Vardhan Narayan Ms. Aishwarya Riti ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER 6 09-12-2013 Heard Mr. Ram Sagar Singh learned counsel for the petitioners in the present batch of writ petition, Mr. S. K. Verma for the private respondent(s), counsel for the Respondents Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat as also the counsel for the State. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.3067 of 2011 (6) dt.09-12-2013 3 / 6 All the three applications arise out of a common order dated 27.01.2011 passed by the Member, District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui (for short ‘the appellate authority’) in diverse applications. They have thus been heard together and are being disposed of by the present order with the consent of the parties. The petitioner(s) assail the aforesaid order passed by the appellate authority on amongst other grounds that the finding(s) recorded by the appellate authority that the private respondent(s) had appeared for counseling in the second phase of selection of appointment undertaken by the concerned Gram Panchayat is/are erroneous. It has been contended that there are several reliable materials to demonstrate that the private respondent(s) had not appeared for counselling and, therefore, were rightly not selected. There is no controversy at Bar that one writ petition being CWJC No. 3005 of 2011 (Smt. Abha Kumari vs. State of Bihar & Ors.) directed against the said common order dated
Decision
27.01.2011 has already been considered and disposed of by order dated 02.07.2013 whereby the application was allowed and the matter was remitted back to the appellate authority for fresh consideration/adjudication in accordance with law. While doing so the relevant part of the order cancelling the appointment of the petitioner was set aside. The appellate authority was directed to pass a fresh order after hearing the parties within a period of three months. This Court would extract operative portion of the said order which reads thus:- In the above circumstances, the part of the order as contained in Annexure-1 cancelling the appointment of the petitioner cannot be sustained law. However, pursuant to the order of the appellate authority the respondent no. 8 was appointed in 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.3067 of 2011 (6) dt.09-12-2013 4 / 6 from and is continuing since then, and as such, the matter is remitted back to the respondent no. 2 for passing the order afresh after hearing the petitioner on appeal filed by the respondent no. 8. Such order be passed within a period of three months on receipt/production of the certified copy of the present order. However, pending disposal of the appeal the respondent no. 8 shall not be disturbed the post of Panchayat Teacher. It goes without saying that appeal be disposed of after hearing the petitioner as also the respondent no. 8 as well as the Panchayat Secretary who shall produced all the original records before the appellate authority for consideration. It is further made clear that continuance of the respondent no. 8 shall be subject to the final result of the appeal filed by her. The writ application accordingly stands disposed above with observations/directions. the of Counsel for the petitioner(s) made diverse submissions to criticize the order passed by the appellate authority which has been impugned in the present case(s). The private respondent(s), on the other hand, has supported the impugned order. It appears that this Court, on a consideration of the submissions, akin to the submissions made herein by the parties, interfered with part of the common order passed by the appellate authority and remitted the same to it for fresh hearing and disposal of the matter in accordance with law after hearing the parties. This Court in view of aforesaid is inclined to take the similar view which has been taken by a bench of this Court in the case noticed hereinabove. Before doing so, this Court would notice some of the submissions made by the petitioner(s) in support of the present batch of application. It has been submitted that there are additional materials 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.3067 of 2011 (6) dt.09-12-2013 5 / 6 available on record to indicate/demonstrate that private respondent(s) had appeared on the said date i.e. 27.01.2009 for counselling in different Gram Panchayats where selection for appointment of P.T. was undergoing. It has next been contended that as per the established service jurisprudence the appellate authority could not have directed for appointment of the private respondent(s). After having interfered with the order, the appellate authority, at best, could have directed the selection committee to consider the case of the private respondent(s). It has also been contended that private respondent(s) had claimed themselves to be the candidate(s) against the unreserved seat whereas the writ petitioner(s) had applied in EBC (male) category. Having found that they have the highest percentage of marks they were considered and selected under unreserved (male) category. It has thus been submitted that there could not be any dispute between the petitioner and private respondent of CWJC No. 3067 of 2011. Even otherwise the petitioner(s) could not have been denied appointment in any category having secured the highest percentage of marks in Intermediate of Arts examination amongst the aspirants, Mr. Verma learned counsel for the private respondents has, however, disputed some of the aforesaid contention of the petitioner(s). Without delving into that aspect of the matter, this Court in the light of the order dated 02.07.2013 passed in CWJC No. 3005 of 2011 is inclined to set aside the relevant part of the order whereby the appointment of the petitioner(s) was declared/held illegal/unsustainable. The matter now goes on remand to the appellate authority for passing a fresh order in accordance with law after hearing both the parties as 6 Patna High Court CWJC No.3067 of 2011 (6) dt.09-12-2013 6 / 6 quickly as possible preferably within three months from the date of appearance of both the parties before the appellate authority. Counsel for the petitioner(s) as well as private respondent(s) are directed to appear before the appellate authority with a copy of the present order within four weeks enabling the appellate authority to dispose of the matter afresh in accordance with law in the light of the observation made hereinabove. Before parting with the records of the present case this Court clarifies that until disposal of the appeal afresh in accordance with law, the private respondent(s) shall be allowed to continue on the post(s) they are said to be continuing. (Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) HR/-