Back
2014 Supreme(Pat) 2
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL, J.
Rajesh Kumar
Suresh Das – Petitioners
Versus
The State Of Bihar through Its Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna & Ors.
The State Of Bihar, Through Its Chief Secretary Bihar, Patna & Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.5425 and 5981 of 2010
Decided on: 02-01-2014
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for adherence to the rules and procedures outlined in the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher Rules 2006 in the selection and appointment process of Panchayat Teachers.
Headnote:
Appointment - Panchayat Teacher Selection Process - Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules 2006 - Rule 9 (vii) (Kha) and 9 (viii) - The court discussed the process of selection and appointment of Panchayat Teachers, the preparation of provisional and final merit lists, and the requirement for counseling and verification of documents. The court highlighted the importance of following the rules and procedures in the selection process and emphasized the need for fairness and transparency in the appointment process.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners applied for the position of Panchayat Teacher (PT) in a Gram Panchayat. The selection process was based on the percentage of marks obtained in the Intermediate Examination. Disputes arose regarding the counseling process, preparation of provisional and final merit lists, and the appointment of candidates.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the respondent no.10, who had obtained a higher percentage of marks, was entitled to be appointed as a Panchayat Teacher. The court also noted that the writ petitioner's claim of participating in the counseling held on 10-10-2006 and 11-10-2006 was not upheld, and the subsequent counseling on 14.1.2008 and 16.1.2008 was found to be valid.
Issues: The issues involved the legality of the appointment process, the validity of the counseling, and the adherence to the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher Rules 2006.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the selection process must adhere to the rules and procedures outlined in the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher Rules 2006. It emphasized the importance of fairness, transparency, and adherence to the prescribed selection criteria.
Final Decision: The court dismissed CWJC No. 5425 of 2010 and allowed CWJC No. 5981 of 2010, directing the concerned respondents to proceed as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority.
In this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for setting aside the order dated 24.2.10 passed by the District Teachers’ Appointment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga (for short “Appellate Authority”) in case no. 505 of 2009 (Suresh Das Vs. Block Development Officer, Bahardurpur). In the second writ petition the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate order/direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to act as per the order passed by the Appellate Authority in case no. 505 of 2009. Petitioner of CWJC No. 5981 of 2010 is respondent no.10 in CWJC No. 5425 of 2010. Both the matters have, therefore, been heard together with the consent of the parties. Order present will govern them.
2. Certain facts drawn from CWJC No. 5425 of 2010, which are not in dispute, may be noticed at the onset.
3. The process of selection and appointment of Panchayat Teacher (for short “PT”) was taken up in Pirri Gram Panchayat within Bahadurpur Block in the District of Darbhanga. The petitioners of both the cases being untrained applied for their appointment. The percentage of marks obtained by a candidate in the Intermediate of Arts/Science Examination is/was the sole criteria for selection of such PTs. The writ petitioner of CWJC No 5425 of 2010 had secured 52.11% at the said examination whereas the respondent no.10 (petitioner of CWJC No. 5981 of 2010) had secured 56.33%. Both the petitioners belonged to Extremely Backward Class (Male) (for short “EBC”) category. Altogether 16 posts of PTs was advertised for appointment in the said Gram Panchayat for which selection process was initiated in the year 2006-07 against which approximately 1333 applications were filed and received. The petitioner filed his application along with the requisite certificates/mark sheets. Similarly the respondent no.10 had also submitted application annexing therewith the requisite certificates/documents. The respondent-District Magistrate by communication dated 3rd October, 2006 (Annexure-4) provided the roster points to the said Gram Panchayat. On perusal whereof, it appears that two out of total 16 posts was/were earmarked for appointment in EBC category. According to the writ petitioner counseling of the applicant(s)/candidate(s) was held on 10-10-2006 and 11-10-2006. The writ petitioner namely Rajesh Kumar had appeared in the said counseling whereas respondent no.10 did not appear. A provisional merit list was prepared and published on 8.11.2006 (Annexure-5) wherein the petitioner Rajesh Kumar figured at Sl. No. 36. The respondent no. 10 did not figure therein. Several complaints were lodged by the applicants/candidates against such selection and preparation of the provisional merit list. The Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat also approached the respondents alleging therein that certain names were deceitfully inserted as the candidates who had filed applications within the time prescribed therefor. The matter was referred to the respondent Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur who was then the competent authority to consider such allegations/grievances and appeal case no. 1 of 2007-2008 was registered. The Block Development Officer having examined the matter by an order dated 9.1.2008 (Annexure-11) directed the Panchayat Secretary and Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat to proceed afresh from the stage of preparation of the provisional panel/merit list and complete the process of selection as per the Rules under the supervision of the authorities. While doing so, the Block Development Officer also found that counseling said to have been earlier held on 10.10.2006 and 11.10.2006 was under serious doubt. It was, therefore, directed in the said order that fresh counseling of the candidates be done under the strict supervision of the members of the selection committee as well as Block Education Extension Officer on 14.1.2008 and 16.1.2008. The writ petition asserts that
