Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20153 of 2012 ====================================================== Md. Meraj Alam S/O Late Md. Yasin R/O Village + Post- Karisath, P.S.- Udawantnagar, District- Bhojpur (Ara) Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Collector, Bhojpur (Ara) 4. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur (Ara) 5. The Member Of The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Bhojpur At Ara 6. The Block Development Officer, Udwantnagar, Bhojpur (Ara) 7. The Block Education Officer, Udwantnagar, Bhojpur (Ara) 8. The Panchayat Secretary Grampanchayat Karisath, Block- Udwantnagar, District- Bhojpur (Ara) 9. The Mukhiya, Grampanchayat Karisath Block Udwantnagar District- Bhojpur (Ara)
Legal Reasoning
had moved this Court in CWJC No. 14850 of 2006 will be of no avail because this writ application was definitely filed after 1.7.2006 when the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra had already been abolished. The further plea that the petitioner had withdrawn his application for moving Tribunal and, therefore, the delay in moving the Tribunal would stand explained has to be again be understood in the context of the 2006 Rules. In the year 2006, when the Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rule, 2006 came into force with effect from 1.7.2006, the post of Panchayat Shiksha Patna High Court CWJC No.20153 of 2012 (2) dt.20-09-2013 4 Mitra was abolished and only a working Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as on 1.7.2006 was sought to be absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner does not fall in that category as he did not continue as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra beyond 29.07.2005. The petitioner, therefore, if he had not moved any court of law prior to 1.7.2006 and had kept on waiting for some decision of the Collector as with regard to refusal of extension on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra cannot now enforce that right in the years 2011 to 2013 by seeking a direction for his reinstatement on an abolished post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. That apart, if the petitioner in the year 2006 having filed his writ application after 1.7.2006 being CWJC No. 14850 of 2006 had not understood the import of Rule 18 which at that point of time provided the Block Development Officer to decide the matter relating to absorption on the post of Panchayat Teacher, he by simply seeking leave of withdrawal of the writ application in the year 2011 could not have claimed to protect his right for continuing that very nature of dispute relating to the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was abolished on 1.7.2006 and the petitioner, in no circumstance, would have been reinstated on that post even by moving the Tribunal. Thus the reasoning and finding of the Tribunal to this Patna High Court CWJC No.20153 of 2012 (2) dt.20-09-2013 5 effect in the impugned order can be held erroneous either on fact or in law. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-
Arguments
.... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Pawan Kr. Mishra GP-22 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 20-09-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Assailing the impugned order dated 18.04.2012 in Appeal Case No. 56 of 2011 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Bhojpur, hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner ought to have not non-suited by the Tribunal on the ground that his grievance was one related to Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and thus not amenable to the jurisdiction of Tribunal. In this regard, he has submitted that it was not a fault on Patna High Court CWJC No.20153 of 2012 (2) dt.20-09-2013 2 the part of the petitioner that after his initial engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 12.4.2003, he could not get any further extension beyond the period of eleven months on account of his being non-intermediate and, therefore, if the petitioner could not continue as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra beyond 29.7.2005 on account of his removal without complying the principles of natural justice the Tribunal in all fairness had to allow the case of the petitioner by setting aside decision of his removal from Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and also consequently also for being reinstated initially as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and then absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Per contra learned counsel for the State has impugned order passed by the Tribunal. In this regard he has not only relied on the finding recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order but had raised the plea of delay of six years on the part of the petitioner in doing matter relating to Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as well as lack of jurisdiction of Tribunal to decide the same. Having regard to the aforesaid submissions as well as the materials on record, this Court must approve the impugned order of the Tribunal for then one reason. The first plea that the petitioner was not given a period of 33 months time to obtain the qualification of Intermediate was a cause of action which was Patna High Court CWJC No.20153 of 2012 (2) dt.20-09-2013 3 available to the petitioner when he was refused such extension in 2005. The post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in fact has been abolished with effect from 1.7.2006 and at least till that date, the petitioner did not move the competent authority which initially was vested in the Collector of the district for deciding any dispute arising out of employment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and if the petitioner therefore had immediately filed an application before the Collector in July 2005 complaining his refusal of extension that could not have been left unattended because if such application filed by him before the Collector did not yield the fruitful result, he had to immediately move the court of law for getting his right secured. The plea that the petitioner ultimately