Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22954 of 2011 Uday Kumar Son Of Arjun Prasad Singh Resident Of Village - Chero, Police Station - Sarmera, District – Nalanda …….. Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human Resource Department, Government of Bihar 2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar 3. The District Magistrate, Nalanda 4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) District -Nalanda 5. The District Education Officer, Nalanda 6. The Block Development Officer, Sarmera, District - Nalanda 7. The Block Education Parsar Officer, Sarmera Block, District - Nalanda 8. Smt. Milwa Devi At Present Mukhiya, Chero Panchayat Resident Of Village - Chero, Police Station - Sarmera, District - Nalanda 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Chero Gram Panchayat, Police Station - Sarmera, District -Nalanda 10. Sri Parmanand Sinha (The Then Counselling Member) At Present Headmaster, High School, Sarmera, Police Station - Sarmera, District - Nalanda 11. Chandra Bhanu Singh Son Of Parmanand Sinha At Present Primary Panchayat Teacher Upgraded Middle School Brindawan, Police Station - Sarmera, District - Nalanda For the Petitioner For the State For the Respondent No. 11 : : : ……… Respondents Mr. Ashok Kumar Dubey Mr. Sachindra Kr. Tiwari & Mr. Bishwajeet Singh, Advocates Mr. S.B.N. Singh, AC to GP 6 Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh & Mr. Kumar Shankaram, Advocates ---------------------------------- CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILESH KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 5 29-08-2013 Heard learned counsels for the petitioner, the State and the respondent no. 11. Petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12th November, 2011 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nalanda in Case No. 233 of 2011 dismissing the appeal of the petitioner against the cancellation of his appointment as Panchayat Teacher. It is submitted that by the aforesaid order the appointment of the petitioner, who was appointed on 2 04.04.2007, was cancelled on the ground that another candidate Chandra Bhushan Singh (respondent no. 11) has got 68% marks being higher than the marks of the petitioner.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel submits that no doubt petitioner has got only 65% marks, but he was an applicant for his appointment under the Backward Class (BC) category quota whereas respondent no. 11 was against Extremely Backward Class (EBC) category which would appear on perusal of his application form as contained in Annexure-8. The process of selection was also accordingly made treating the respondent no. 11 as EBC whereas the case of the petitioner was considered against BC category. Besides the question of marks, the respondent no. 9 in fact did not attend the counseling and his signature in the counseling sheet was put by his father who was also a part of the employment unit being the member, and as such, the counseling sheet itself was fabricated. Not only the counseling the sheet, the application form which the respondent no. 11 has annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure-R 11-10 for the purpose that respondent no. 11 was of BC category was equally forged and fabricated document since his application as contained in Annexure-8 is correct document bearing the attestation of the Block Development Officer. Petitioner against the cancellation of his appointment represented his grievance by filing representations before the District Superintendent of Education, Block Extension Officer and the District Magistrate 3 on 29th December, 2008 and thereafter for having his grievance not redressed petitioner moved this Court by filing writ petition vide CWJC No. 2055 of 2009 disposed of by order dated 11.02.2009 (Annexure-12) read with the modified order dated 26.02.2009, whereby this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ application to agitate his grievance before the Block Development Officer being a competent authority under rules 18 of the Panchayat Teacher (Employment and Terms & condition) Rules, 2006. Petitioner filed the application before the concerned Block Development Officer which was registered as Case No. 1 of 2008-09. The matter on being heard the application of the petitioner was dismissed by upholding the appointment of respondent no. 11 purely on the ground that petitioner had obtained 65 % marks whereas respondent no. 11 had obtained 68% marks. It was further held that respondent no. 11 as also petitioner both belongs to backward class category there appears to be overwriting in the counseling sheet. Further another writ petition vide CWJC No. 7516 of 2009 disposed of on 16.09.2011 taking notice of the fact that there are so many factual aspects which needs consideration and the same cannot be decided by writ Court as the matter needs evidence in support of the allegations as also the decision is to be taken on basis of the connected record. Accordingly, the matter was remitted back to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Nalanda for 4 deciding the issues. The Appellate Authority heard the matter and passed the impugned order after receiving the report from the Block Development Officer, Sarmera (Annexure-16) dismissing the appeal. In sum and substance, it is submitted that respondent no. 11 on basis of forged and fabricated document claimed himself to be a candidate of BC category whereas his application was under EBC category, as such, the employment unit could not have appointed the petitioner under this category which resulted in terminating the services of the petitioner. Accordingly, the order as contained in Annexure-7 deserves to be quashed. Learned counsel in order to substantiate that the father of respondent no. 11 was one of the members of employment unit has caused prejudice and he should not have taken part in the proceeding. On the other hand, learned counsels for the State as also the private respondent supports the impugned order. It is submitted that on perusal of the impugned order, it would appear that relevant records were produced and all the authorities including the Block Development Officer, Block Education Officer as also the Panchayat Teacher Employment Unit have denied the claim of the petitioner. It is further submitted that due to sheer mistake the appointment letter to the respondent no. 11 was given under EBC category and mistakes were also committed in respect of some other candidates, which were immediately corrected on the very next 5 date in proceedings of the Employment Unit held on 5th April, 2007 as contained in Annexure-R11-5. The allegation that copy of the application field by respondent no. 11 as contained in Annexure-R11-10 is forged document is denied as well as the allegation of fraud committed in his signature in the counseling sheet in fact the same was found to be in order by the Block Development Officer the competent authority in its order as contained in Annexure-14. It has also been submitted that it is not denied by anyone that the respondent no. 11 belongs to BC category and has obtained 68 % marks whereas petitioner secured only 65% marks. In other words respondent supports the impugned order. Besides the above, it is submitted that petitioner did not approach the competent authority under Rule 18 of the aforesaid statutory rule who at the material time was the concerned Block Development Officer although made representations before different authorities. Considering the submissions of the parties and their respective pleadings, it is not in dispute that petitioner had obtained 65% marks in the qualifying examination for selection as Panchayat Teacher whereas respondent no. 11 had secured 68% marks. The serious controversy is with respect to as to whether respondent no. 11 belongs to EBC category or BC. The issue has been hotly contested. Petitioner refers to the application of respondent no. 11 as contained in Annexure-8 in order to show that he had put his candidature against general 6 as well as reserved category under EBC. Respondent no. 11 on the other hand has drawn the attention of the Court to the application form annexed with its counter affidavit as contained in Annexure-R11/10 in order to show that he had put his candidature under reserved category of Backward Class. Another controversy raised is with respect to signature of respondent no. 11 in the counseling sheet. According to the petitioner the signature was of the father of respondent no. 11 who was one of the members of employment unit. The same has been vehemently denied by respondent no. 11 who claim that signature appearing in the counseling sheet is of respondent no. 11 which has also been taken notice in the order dated 07.04.2009 passed by Block Development Officer (Annexure-15) wherein it was mentioned that on perusal of order as contained in Annexure-14 as also the impugned order dated 12th November, 2011 (Annexure-17) it would appear that the order has been passed on considering the entire facts which has been disputed between the parties, and as such this Court in exercise of its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction would not decide on such disputed question which has been considered and decided by the authorities as the impugned order. As such, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the order. As regards the decision as referred by the petitioner, the same is not of much relevance in view of the decision of employment unit on 05.04.2007 as contained in Annexure-R11/5 rectifying the 7 mistake in such employment alongwith other candidates mentioned in the aforesaid decision, as such, the father of respondent no. 11 being one of the members of employment unit is not of much legal consequence. The order does not call for interference. For the reasons and discussions made above, I do not find any merit in the writ application. It is accordingly dismissed. Manish/- (Shailesh Kumar Sinha,J.)