Begusarai v. 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.16707 of 2013 ====================================================== Sanjeet Kumar Yadav Son Of Shankar Yadav Resident Of Village: Sisauni (Navkothi), P.S.: Navkothi, District: Begusarai .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Collector, Begusarai 3. The District Teachers' Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai Through Sri Nagendra Nath Chaudhary, Member-District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Begusarai. 4. The District Programme Officer, Begusarai 5. The District Superintendent Of Education, Begusarai 6. The S.D.O., Bakhri, District: Begusarai 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Pahsara Purvi, P.S.: Navkothi, District: Begusarai 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Pahsara Purvi, P.S.: Navkothi, District: Begusarai 9. Deepak Kumar Son Of Late Laxmi Chaudhary Resident Of Village: Navkothi, P.S.: Navkothi, District: Begusarai .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durgesh Nandan, Adv For the Respondent/s : Mr. Jaishankar Barnwal SC-1. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 4 16-12-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner while assailing the impugned order dated 30.03.2013 (Annexure-1) in Case No. 150 of 2011 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal has primarily concentrated on the aspect that the Tribunal has failed to take into account that the compliance of the order dated 27.12.2010 was only possible if prior to 27.12.2010 any date has been fixed. In this regard he has now
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.16707 of 2013 (4) dt.16-12-2013 2 having filed the supplementary affidavit has brought on record the entire order sheet of Case No. 150 of 2011 and from the same he has pointed out that the Tribunal in fact has hardly maintained any standard procedure for listing of the case or passed the order on the prescribed date. He has also submitted that as a matter of fact when the petitioner was denied the copy of the entire ordersheet for a long period, has ultimately been given such ordersheet under Right to Information Act. He on comparative perusal of the handwriting in the ordersheet has all the reasons to believe that there being some sort of interpolation in the preparation of the ordersheet. 3. This Court having perused the photocopy of the entire ordersheet as contained in Annexure-13 would find it difficult to sustain the finding on the basis of which the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by the Tribunal. First of all none of the ordersheet bear the signature of the member of the Tribunal and from the contents therefore, it is clear that the bench clerk had written the ordersheet and only on few dates the member has cared to make some of his own entry. The ordersheet has to be maintained by the officer who is conducting the proceeding and it may be that the portion may be dictated by him to the bench clerk but nonetheless the signature at end of the order must be there. Patna High Court CWJC No.16707 of 2013 (4) dt.16-12-2013 3 4. From the entire ordersheet which has been produced in the form of Annexure-13 of Case No. 150 of 2011 there being no signature of the member, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that plea of learned counsel for the petitioner of being absent before the Tribunal is well founded. 5. The matter can be viewed from another angle, inasmuch as, on 17.05.2012/24.05.2012/28.05.2012 the order has been passed which was not the fixed date because the earlier date fixed as per the
Decision
order dated 26.04.2012/27.04.2012 was 17.05.2012. It is very difficult to understand as to why the case was not taken up by the Tribunal on 24.05.2012/28.05.2012. 6. If the case was allegedly heard on 28.05.2012 for allowing the prayer of the petitioner for summoning of the original employment register from the Panchayat Secretary of gram panchayat concerned, no further date was given and in fact the bench clerk had no business to make entry in the date of 28.05.2012, who could not have passed the order in capacity of the member of the Tribunal. The bench clerk has mentioned for compliance of the order dated 28.05.2012 but he could have done so in the note portion and not in main order sheet which infact would create impression of his being the authority conducting the proceeding. Patna High Court CWJC No.16707 of 2013 (4) dt.16-12-2013 4 7. On 27.12.2012 on which date the bench clerk had placed the matter before the member as if he was placing the administrative file for getting some order of his officer. It has been penned down by the member that the petitioner should be asked to appear on 07.01.2013 but that does not seem to have been communicated by any person to the petitioner and therefore, the absence of the petitioner from 07.01.2013 onwards till the complaint of the petitioner was dismissed on 30.03.2013 on the ground of non appearance of the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appeal to this Court much less can be approved the manner in which the ordersheets dated 20.01.2013, 11.02.2013, 18.02.2013, and 25.02.2013 have been maintained which are infact all in one stroke of pen and by the same person. 8. In view of the above, this Court is thoroughly dissatisfied in the manner in which the Tribunal has maintained the ordersheet and therefore, the case of the petitioner could not have been rejected in such perfunctory manner and considering all these aspects specially the facts of this case, the Court is satisfied that the petitioner has been unnecessarily harassed by the Tribunal. 9. That being so, this writ application is allowed and the impugned order passed by the Tribunal in Annexure-1 is Patna High Court CWJC No.16707 of 2013 (4) dt.16-12-2013 5 hereby quashed and the matter is remitted back to the Tribunal to now decide the case of the petitioner after giving notice and/or opportunity of hearing not only to the petitioner but also to the respondent nos. 7, 8 and 9. This exercise, however, by the Tribunal must be completed within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. 10. This Court must record that all there have happened in the present case because the State Government till date has not framed any rules for conducting the proceedings before the Tribunal and the different Tribunal all over the State have evolve their own way to conduct the proceedings. It is thus high time that the State Government would address itself for framing uniform rule of conducting the proceeding before the Tribunal. 11. Let a copy of this order be also sent to the Principal Secretary of Education Department for impressing upon the State Government to frame the rules for conducting the proceedings before the Tribunal in a fair and objective manner. Ranjan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)