Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9913 of 2011 ====================================================== 1. Ratna Sahay W/O Shri Jyoti Kumar Shrivastava, R/O Nandan Medical Hall Hospital Road, Siwan P.O.Town Siwan, Distt.-Siwan At Present Posted And Working As Panchayat Teacher In Govt. Primary School Sahuli Boys, Anchal-Hasanpura, Distt.-Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Govt. Of Bihar Vikash Bhawan, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar R/O Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3. The Divisional Commissioner, Saran Division Chapra 4. The District Magistrate, Siwan 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Siwan 6. The District Superintendent of Education Siwan Distt.-Siwan 7. The Block Development Officer, Hussainganj (Now Hasanpura) Distt.- Siwan 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Hussainganj (Now Hasanpura) Distt.-Siwan 9. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Sahuli, Block Hussainganj (Now Hasanpura) Distt.-Siwan 10. The Panchayat Secretary of Panchayat Sahuli, Distt.-Siwan 11. The Member District Teacher's Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan 12. Manju Kumari D/O Laldhar Sharma R/O At Present Village-Rajendra Staduum, Shanti Nagar, P.O.-Siwan, Distt.-Siwan .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr Dilip Kumar, AC to GA 7 ====================================================== CORAM: HON’BLE MR JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH ORAL ORDER 4 18-03-2013 The present writ application has been filed by the petitioner for review of the order dated 25.06.2010 passed in CWJC No 11433 of 2009 (Manju Kumari –Versus- State of Bihar
Facts
Patna High Court CWJC No.9913 of 2011 (4) dt.18-03-2013
Legal Reasoning
& Others) by this Court in view of leave granted in this regard by 2 the Letters Patent Appeal Bench. Without going into the technicality whether a writ for review would lie or not and whether this Court can issue a writ to itself setting aside its order, I consider it proper and desirable, in the interest of justice, to entertain this writ petition and hear the same on merit. It so happened that selections were to be made for Panchayat Teachers in respect of Gram Panchyat Raj Sahuli, Block – Hussainganj, District – Siwan. Apart from others, this petitioner and private respondent No 12 Manju Kumari who is
Decision
shown in the writ petition itself as at present resident of village – Rajendra Stadium, Shanti Nagar, PS + District – Siwan applied. Manju Kumari (respondent No 12) was selected and appointed. She started working as such. Petitioner, being aggrieved by her non-selection and alleged wrongful selection of Manju Kumari, approached the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Siwan. Before the Tribunal, the plea of the petitioner was that as one of the eligibility conditions for appointment as Panchayat Teacher was that the candidate must be a citizen of India and a resident of Bihar, respondent No 12, Manju Kumari was wrongly selected. It was stated that the ancestral house of her father was in Patna High Court CWJC No.9913 of 2011 (4) dt.18-03-2013 District – Deoria (UP) though it was not disputed that since a very 3 long time, Manju Kumari’s father was posted in Siwan being in Central Government Service. The Tribunal, having considered the matter and apparently called for some reports, came to a finding that the father of Manju Kumari was a permanent resident of Deoria and in the meantime, Manju Kumari had got married in a family of UP. As such, she was not eligible and had been wrongly selected. The Tribunal, thus, set aside the selection of Manju Kumari. Manju Kumari, being aggrieved by the said decision, filed the aforesaid writ petition (CWJC No 11433 of 2009) before this Court challenging the correctness of the order of the Tribunal. She brought on record, what was already before the Gram Panchayat and the Tribunal, that she had done her Matriculation in the year, 1998 from S S Girls High School, Gopalganj, Bihar passing in first division as per the certificate granted by the Bihar School Examination Board. She had done her Intermediate in 2000 from M M College, Gopalganj, Bihar as per the certificate granted by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council securing first division. She then did her three years Honours Course and passed in July, 2004 from Jai Prakash University, Chapra. She was registered as a voter from Siwan. Patna High Court CWJC No.9913 of 2011 (4) dt.18-03-2013 Her name figured in the ration card issued to her father at Siwan. 4 She had been granted residential certificate from the Circle Officer showing her to be resident of Siwan. Upon consideration of these facts, this Court came to the conclusion that no doubt the family of Manju Kumari’s father belong to Deoria but that did not make her a non-resident of Bihar. She had spent all her life in Bihar. What was the eligibility condition was to be a resident and not a permanent resident of Bihar. In view of the facts aforesaid, it was established that she had done her schooling, her Intermediate and her College all from Bihar showing that for a considerable point of time, she had been in Bihar. Upon this, this Court held that the Tribunal erred in holding that she was not a resident of Bihar. This Court further noticed that even if she was married to a family of UP unless she left Siwan to stay in UP, she would continue to be a resident of Bihar. In fact, on the records, this Court had found that the marriage had taken place in Siwan and the husband of Manju Kumari was working within the State of Bihar. Upon these facts, this Court set aside the order of the Tribunal and directed her reinstatement. The present writ petitioner is aggrieved by the said order of this Court. On her behalf, it is submitted that as the Patna High Court CWJC No.9913 of 2011 (4) dt.18-03-2013 order of the Tribunal was at her instance and in her favour, she 5 ought to have been made a party-respondent in the said writ petition and ought to have been heard. In my view, no exception can be taken to the said submission. I, therefore, deem it that the earlier order passed as against this petitioner would not bind the petitioner as an order adverse to her interest had been passed without her being made a party. But at the same time, the petitioner wanted to impress upon this Court that the order passed by the Tribunal was proper order. There I differ. On the facts noted above, I find that the Tribunal clearly erred. The facts clearly show that in fact respondent No 12 Manju Kumari was a resident of Bihar. She had done her schooling in Bihar, her Intermediate in Bihar, her College in Bihar. All this was done while she was residing with her father at Siwan. As noticed above, the requirement is not of permanent resident but the requirement is residency. Merely because the family of respondent No 12’s father originally belong to Deoria in the State of UP will not make the children or grand children a resident of Deoria. Thus, in my view, the order of the Tribunal is neither legal nor sustainable. I may only add here that Tribunal has noted that respondent No 12 Manju Kumari was married to a Patna High Court CWJC No.9913 of 2011 (4) dt.18-03-2013 man whose family belongs to UP. Again, the same error. The 6 Tribunal did not give any finding as to where the husband of Manju Kumari was residing. Even, in this writ petition, no facts have been brought on record to show that either the husband of Manju Kumari (respondent No 12) is working or living outside Bihar or for that matter, Manju Kumari herself, after her marriage, had left Siwan and is living outside the State. In the earlier writ proceedings, Manju Kumari had clearly stated that her marriage had taken place at Siwan and her husband is working in the State of Bihar. These two basic facts have neither been doubted nor challenged before this Court even in this writ petition. Thus, in my view, the order of the appellate Tribunal holding that Manju Kumari was wrongly selected cannot be upheld. If that be so then the result is the same as in the earlier writ petition. The order of the Tribunal has to be set aside and the selection, as made originally by the Gram Panchayat of respondent No 12, Manju Kumari, be upheld. Consequently, Manju Kumari would be liable to be reinstated and for the period for which she had worked earlier and after her reinstatement, she would be paid her due wages. Petitioner then submits that after the selection process was over, two vacancies were caused, one because of Patna High Court CWJC No.9913 of 2011 (4) dt.18-03-2013 death of one of the Panchayat Teachers and the other by 7 resignation of another. Thus, petitioner may be directed to be appointed in those vacancies. I am afraid, no order can be passed for it is well settled that once the appointment process is over, the panel made for the selection exhausts. It would have been a different matter that a candidate selected did not join but here, as per petitioner herself, they joined, they worked and subsequently they resigned. The panel upon their joining stood exhausted. Those vacancies can only be filled by initiation of fresh selection process. In that view of the matter, this writ petition merits no consideration and is dismissed accordingly, however, with an observation that for the period for which this writ petitioner has worked, she would be entitled to full remuneration. It is expected that payment would be made to the parties, as directed above, within a period of two months from today. M.E.H./- (Navaniti Prasad Singh)