West Champaran v. 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Primary And Adult Education, Govt. Of
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20445 of 2012 ====================================================== Madhuri Kumari Daughter Of Krishnadeo Ram Resident Of Village: Laherwa, P.S.: Jogapatti, District: West Champaran.... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary Primary And Adult Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The Gram Panchayat Bhawanipur, Through Panchayat Secretary, P.S. Jogapatti, District- West Champaran 4. The Panchayat Secretary, Bhawanipur Gram Panchayat, P.S. Jogapatti, District- West Champaran 5. Ajay Kumar S/O Shiv Ratan Ram R/O Village Amraiya Tiwari Tola P.S. Chanpatiya Distt. East Champaran .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : M/s. Ram Adya Singh & Jagdish Prasad Singh For the State : S.C.-15 For the Respondent no.5 : Mr. Nishwajat Kr. Mishra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 7 25-06-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. In this writ application, the petitioner has prayed for quashing of the order dated 12.4.2012 in Case No. 143 of 2011 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, West Champaran (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’). Learned counsel for the petitioner, while assailing the impugned order of Tribunal, has submitted that the petitioner was an applicant for the post of Panchayat Teacher in Bhawanipur Gram Panchayat in the district of West Champaran against the post earmarked for scheduled caste female but as against that post, the respondent no.5, belonging to the schedule caste, was appointed even when the petitioner had 56.7% marks as against 2 the respondent no.5 having only 46% marks. Counsel has submitted that the Tribunal has, however, rejected the case of the petitioner only on the ground of delay in filing of the complaint which is contrary to the spirit of Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006. On the other hand, counsel for the respondent no.5 has submitted that as because the petitioner did not appear for counseling on 30.12.2010, the appointment of the respondent no.5 belonging to scheduled caste male category was made in view of the circular of the State Government dated 8.8.2006. He has also supported the impugned order of the Tribunal on the ground of its being barred by limitation.
Legal Reasoning
The first and foremost issue, therefore, would be as to whether the Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rule, 2006 as amended by notification dated 25.8.2008 and 3.7.2009 prescribe any period of limitation for filing of the complaint by the aggrieved person? This Court on perusal of Rule 18 either of the year 2006 rules or its amendment in 2008 & 2009 does not find any period of limitation set out for filing of the complaint by the aggrieved person. The solitary reason for non-suiting the petitioner by the Tribunal in the impugned order thus is wholly unsustainable. 3 The Tribunal in fact in the impugned order has also noted that the Panchayat Secretary in its reply had stated that the selection of the respondent no.5 had already been made on 26.12.2010 and his joining was accepted on 29.12.2010 whereas the claim of the respondent no.5 was that this counseling was held on 30.12.2010 and the joining was accepted on 7.1.2011. Unfortunately, the Tribunal has recorded no findings on this aspect and has arbitrarily rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground of delay in filing of the complaint. As a matter of fact, the Tribunal has also not tried to find out as to whether there were more meritorious candidates than the petitioner in the Scheduled Caste Female category and how could the respondent no.5 be appointed being a schedule caste male. The one paragraph order of the Tribunal after recording the submission of both the sides in fact would only go to show complete non-application of mind by the Tribunal. Such order cannot be sustained specially when the Tribunal is a fact finding body which is required to go into the all the aspects including the manner of the issuance of notice for counseling. Nothing has infact been brought on record by the respondent no.5 to show that a notice of counseling was issued to him and in fact when Panchayat Secretary had recorded that the selection of the 4 respondent no.5 had already been made on 26.12.2010, the story of counseling on 30.12.2010 itself becomes doubtful. The Tribunal thus in all fairness ought to have looked into the original record of counseling, selection and appointment of the respondent no.5 instead of dismissing the complaint of the petitioner in a very summary manner on the ground of limitation. Thus, for all the aforesaid reasons, the impugned order cannot be sustained and the same is hereby set aside and the case is remitted back to the Tribunal which now must decide the whole issue in an objective manner after examining the entire records of selection and appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in question. It is however made clear that even if the appointment of the respondent no.5 is held to be bad, the same will not lead to automatic direction for appointment of the petitioner in view of the fact that the Tribunal in the impugned order had recorded that there were more meritorious candidates in the merit list than the petitioner. In such event, on cancellation of the appointment of respondent no.5, the Tribunal will only direct for fresh process of counseling by issuance of notice under registered post to all the candidates including the petitioner and the respondent no.5 by the Panchayat Secretary of the Panchayat in question. 5 In order to expedite the matter, this Court, with the consent of the counsel for the petitioner and the respondent no.5, would fix the date of 19th August 2013 for their appearance before the Tribunal and the Tribunal, thereafter, will issue notice to the Panchayat Secretary as also to other official respondents for production of the records relating to selection and appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in question. The Tribunal, thereafter, on perusal of the records as also after hearing the parties including the petitioner and the respondent no.5 must dispose of the complaint of the petitioner, Case No. 143 of 2011 on merit expeditiously preferably by 31.12.2013. With the aforementioned observations and direction,
Decision
this application is disposed of. A.Ahmad/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)