IMPORTANT POINT
The reasonableness of the filing period for an appeal should be interpreted based on the specific facts of each case. Fairness and transparency are essential in the public employment process.

JUDGMENT :

These two writ applications being connected with each other, have been taken up for consideration together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. The result of CWJC No.11609 of 2022 would guide the outcome of CWJC No.7070 of 2023.

2. In course of submissions, learned counsel for the parties have relied upon the pleadings available on the record in CWJC No.11609 of 2022, hence, this Court would briefly refer the relevant facts and the parties position from the said record hereunder.

3. The petitioner has questioned the order dated 28.04.2022 passed by Hon’ble Chairperson (Judicial), the State Appellate Authority in Appeal No.359 of 2019 (Angad Kumar Arzoo Vs. the State of Bihar & Ors.). The impugned order is Annexure-‘15’ to the writ application. This petitioner was respondent no.9 in the appeal preferred by the respondent no.7. The respondent no.7 in the instant case is the writ petitioner in CWJC No.7070 of 2023.

4. By the impugned order (Annexure-‘15’) the appellate authority has set aside the order dated 23.09.2019 passed by the learned District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Purnea (hereinafter referred to as the ‘District Authority’) in Appeal No.13 of 2018 (300 of 2009, 05 of 2013) and has also set aside the consequential order dated 02.03.2022 by which this petitioner has been allowed to work.

Brief facts of the case

5. The facts are not much in dispute. There was an advertisement in the year 2006 inviting applications for appointment of Block Teacher in Amour Block of Purnea District in which four posts were reserved for Schedule Castes (Male) candidates. The petitioner as well as the respondent no.7 were the applicants for the post. The petitioner had obtained 53.33% marks at Intermediate level whereas the respondent no.7 had passed his Intermediate examination with 52.77% marks. Admittedly, the petitioner was placed above the respondent no.7 in the merit list which was prepared after the counselling held on 01.03.2007. The name of the petitioner appeared at serial no.5 whereas the name of respondent no.7 appeared at serial no.7 in the merit list. The petitioner, however, came to know after some time that the respondent no.7 has been appointed as Block Teacher.

6. It is the case of the petitioner that being aggrieved, he approached the D.D.O. and thereafter to the District Magistrate, Purnea but they did not take notice of the grievance raised by the petitioner. Ultimately, the petitioner challenged the appointment of respondent no.7 by filing an appeal before the District Authority, Purnea vide Appeal No.300 of 2009.

7. The Appeal No.300 of 2009 was allowed but without giving opportunity of hearing to respondent no.7, therefore the respondent no.7 preferred writ application being CWJC No.1590 of 2010 before this Court seeking quashing of the order passed by the District Authority in Appeal No.300 of 2009. The learned Writ Court disposed of the writ application vide order dated 04.03.2013 pointing out the statements made in paragraph ‘18’ of the writ application that the order of the Tribunal has been passed without hearing or notice to the petitioner. The learned Writ Court expressed it’s view that if the statements made in paragraph ‘18’ are correct, then the Annexure-‘1’ which was impugned in the said writ application stands quashed, but on verification if it is found that the statements made in paragraph ‘18’ of the writ application is not correct then the Tribunal will record so if the petitioner approaches the Tribunal.

Second round of litigation

8. It is not in dispute that the present respondent no.7 was the writ petitioner before this Court, he preferred an Appeal No.5 of 2013 before the District Authority and this time the appeal of the respondent no.7 was allowed. From Annexure-‘5’ to the writ application it appears that the District Authority took note of the order of this Court in CWJC No.1590 of 2010 and on finding that the respondent no.7 was not heard, therefore the District Auth