The judgment establishes the principle that orders of the State Appellate Authority cannot be overridden by officers of the Education Department, and any such action would amount to flouting the order, potentially leading to penalties and departmental proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

1. The petitioners have preferred this writ petition assailing the order passed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria dated 01.11.2022, whereby the appointment of the petitioners have been canceled as a Block Teacher with immediate effect directing the Employment Unit not to allow the petitioners to perform their duties.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioners had preferred appeal before the State Appellate Authority challenging the legality of an order passed on 15.12.2017 by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, whereby the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority had refused to grant relief to the petitioner on the ground that the post had now to be treated as vacancies under the new selection and, therefore, the post cannot be filled as there was no vacancy available. The State Appellate Authority has noticed that there were several posts in different categories existing for recruitment and a document in this regard had been produced under the Right to Information Act. As the litigation was continuing against these posts. In view thereof, the State Appellate Authority disposed of the appeals with direction to the Block Employment Unit, Palasi to consider the case of the appellants afresh in accordance with law against those vacancies. And, it further observed that if the Employment Unit of the concerned Block decides to take steps for employment/engagement in the categories to which the appellants belong against the unfilled vacancies if any, the Respondent Employment Unit shall consider the case of the appellants in accordance with law.”

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that a meeting was held of the Employment Unit on 24th May 2018 and it was decided to proceed further with the employment process against the unfilled vacancies. And in this regard, the Block Education Officer, who was asked to make available the details relating to the vacant post.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also taken this Court to Annexure 7, a document received under R.T.I. dated 17.05.2018 which was relied upon by the State Appellate Authority wherein, it is mentioned that points from 100 to 124, there were 12 posts lying vacant on account of the complaints/disputes pending in the Court.

5. The appointment was thereafter, offered to the petitioners on 24th May, 2018 and since then, the petitioners have been continuously performing their duties. The petitioners thereafter, filed writ petition before this Court as their salary was not being released. The cases were heard together with other similar matters by this Court and a general direction was issued to release the salary of all the teachers who are working.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that thereafter, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria has issued an order on 01.11.2022 directing that the amount of salary be released up to August 2022 of the petitioners and thereafter, it restrained the Employment Unit to continue the services of the petitioners and further warning was issued that if the appointments are cancelled, their salary and accountability shall wholly rest with the Employment Unit and the Block Education Officer, Palasi. In the said order, it was also stated that all the vacancies after the recruitment process of 2008 was over, got absorbed in the recruitment year 2012 and thereafter, in recruitment year 2014 and therefore, there was no vacancy available on which the petitioners could have been appointed.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the said aspect was already dealt with by the State Appellate Authority and the District Programme Officer (Establishment) had no authority to override the observations of the State Appellate Authority and take a different view.

8. This Court vide order dated 15.12.2022, stayed the operation of the order passed by the District Programme Officer dated 01.11.2022