Back
2011 Supreme(Pat) 2046
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Jayanandan Singh, J.
Md. Shami Uddin, S/o Sri Habi Uddin Resident of village Chhoti Balia Upper Total, P.S. Balia, District Begusarai - Petitioner
Versus
The State Of Bihar & Ors. - Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10329 of 2008
Decided on : 27.9.2011
For the Petitioner: M/s Amaresh Kumar Singh & Dineshwar Singh.
For the State: A.C. to G.A. 5
The complaint regarding appointment disputes should be filed within 30 days, and the principles established in previous judgments, particularly related to reservation, are crucial in determining the validity of such disputes.
Headnote:
Reservation - Appointment Dispute - Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services Act, 1991 - Article 16 of the Constitution - Indra Sawhney Vs. Union of India [AIR 1993 SC 477 = (1993) 3 SCC 217] - Ritesh R. Sah Vs. Y.L. Yamul & Ors.(AIR 1996 SC 1378)
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no.7 as Shiksha Mitra, alleging errors in the appointment process. The Hon'ble Lokayukta initially found in favor of the petitioner, but subsequent calculations led to the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appointment dispute was not maintainable as the complaint should have been filed within 30 days of the appointment, as per the Guidelines. The court also dismissed the petitioner's claim based on the principles established in previous judgments.
Issues: Validity of appointment dispute, timeliness of complaint, application of reservation principles
Ratio Decidendi: The complaint should have been filed within 30 days of the appointment. The principles established in previous judgments, including the Indra Sawhney case, were applied to determine the validity of the appointment dispute.
Final Decision: The writ application was dismissed.
J.N. Singh, J. - Petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of a memo no. 7481 dated 25.09.2007 (Annexure–6), issued by the respondent no.6 enclosing an ORDER :of the Hon'ble Lokayukta dated 20.09.2007, by which, recalling his earlier ORDER :dated 21.03.2007, he has disposed of the petition of the petitioner, finding no error in the appointment of respondent no.7, by rejecting the alternative plea of the petitioner that respondent no.7, with higher points of 17, should have been shifted in the category of general category candidates and hence, petitioner with 15 points, should have been adjusted on the vacancy for reserved category candidate. He has further prayed for also quashing of memo no. 2332 dated 20.12.2007 (Annexure–8), containing an ORDER :of the District Collector, by which, as a follow-up action to the said ORDER :of the Hon'ble Lokayukta dated 25.09.2007, his appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, made by the ORDER :of the Panchayat Secretary dated 13.07.2007 (Annexure–5), pursuant to the said earlier ORDER :of the Hon'ble Lokayukta dated 21.03.2007, has been cancelled.
2. Facts of the case are that in 2005 there were two vacancies of Shiksha Mitras in the Balia Lakhminia I Panchayat of Balia Block of Begusarai District. Out of the two, one vacancy was for general category and the other was reserved for Most Backward Category (M.B.C.). Besides others, petitioner and respondent no.7 applied for the said reserved category whereas respondent no. 8 applied for general category. Initially on account of higher weightage, respondent no.7 was appointed against the reserved category vacancy and respondent no.8 was appointed against the general category vacancy. Allegedly, after filing complaints, petitioner challenged the said appointment of respondent no.7 on the reserved vacancy before the Hon'ble Lokayukta. In the first round of hearing, on the basis of a report of respondent no.3, Hon'ble Lokayukta found that respondent no.7 had only 14 points, whereas petitioner had 15 points. Hence he passed the said ORDER :dated 21.03.2007, directing the competent authority to take action on the basis of the report and rectify the mistake and submit a compliance report within 3 months. Accordingly, ORDER :s were issued (Annexure–5) and petitioner joined as Shiksha Mitra in the Urdu Madhya Vidyalaya, Mirdahtoli on 14.07.2007. Respondent no.7 filed an application before the Hon'ble Lokayukta disputing the said earlier report of the respondent no. 3. Hence the matter was heard again, and after calculation of the points on the basis of the provisions in the Rules, it was found that points of petitioner, respondent no.7 and respondent no.8 came to 15, 17 & 15 respectively. In the circumstances, the Hon'ble Lokayukta passed the impugned ORDER :dated 20.9.2007. The follow-up ORDER :s, were issued, vide impugned Annexure–8, cancelling the appointment of petitioner.
3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that, though before the Hon'ble Lokayukta petitioner had questioned the validity and genuineness of the certificates of academic qualifications produced by respondent no.7, but in this writ application he will confine his submission to the issue that respondent no.7 having higher marks than respondent no.8, should have been shifted against the general vacancy and the reserved vacancy should have gone in favour of the petitioner. He submitted that, on an another application of the petitioner submitted in the office of Hon'ble Lokayukta, an enquiry was ORDER :ed and the S.D.O. submitted a report to the Deputy Collector Establishment, Begusari, vide his letter no.1462 dated 31.7.2008, giving his tentative finding that as respondent no.7 was at the top in the merit list, he should have been appointed against the vacancy for general category and petitioner should have been appointed against the vacancy for reserved category. However, since petitioner had relied upon two resolutions of the Personnel and Administrative
