Court affirmed the validity of the petitioner's ongoing employment, rejecting claims of illegality due to lack of adverse findings and directing timely payment of due salary.

JUDGMENT :

AJIT KUMAR, J.

1. Heard Mr. Abhishek Krishna Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner and learned GA-12 duly assisted by Ms. Abhanjali, learned AC to GA-12.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has filed the instant writ application for payment of salary from the date of joining in terms of the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Division Bench in Letters Patent Appeal No. 63 of 2014 vide order dated 01.09.2016.

3. It is the case of the petitioner that as against 18 vacant posts of Panchayat Teachers, the petitioner’s appointment under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 was made. Later, the petitioner’s appointment was alleged to be illegal terming him to have wrongly entered into the service and accordingly, the claim of payment of salary was not made, since the date of joining. It is the case of the petitioner that he continued to discharge his duties on the post since initial joining made pursuant to the selection on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner further contends that in the case of other similarly situated persons, various enquiries were directed and termination orders in some cases were passed with respect to certain similarly situated persons, who had to approach the Appellate Authority, whose appeals were dismissed and against the order of Appellate Authority, writ petition was preferred, which was disposed of vide order dated 21.02.2013 passed in CWJC No. 935 of 2010 and the following order was passed:-

"The only reason why the District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Sheikhpura did not decide the lis was because a criminal case has already been filed, most of the records have been seized and are lying before the Judicial Magistrate for trial.

If the petitioners file all the relevant documents, which they have obtained as authentic copies under Right to Information Act, and they satisfy the requirements of their authenticity as well as help in adjudication of the issue raised, the Tribunal may endeavour to re-look into the matter afresh and take a decision on the status of these petitioners. It is made clear that if any clarification is required on any document, that may always be got in from the court of concerned Judicial Magistrate.

Writ is disposed of with the above direction."

4. In view of the aforesaid order of remand passed by this Court to hear afresh, the Appellate Authority considered their cases and returned a finding vide order dated 27.08.2013, whereby it was held that in absence of documents, the Appellate Authority cannot take any decision and accordingly, on their appeals so filed pursuant to the remand by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, the said appeal was dismissed.

5. Being aggrieved by the said decision of the appellate authority dated 27.08.2013, the writ petition being CWJC No. 19201 of 2013 was again preferred by them, which stood dismissed. Consequent thereupon, Letters Patent Appeal No. 63 of 2014 was filed in which the stand of the appellants was that their appointments were made in the year 2006 but their services were terminated consequent to the order passed by the Block Development Officer, which order has been set aside. It is thereafter none of the authorities have found any illegality in the order of appointment of the appellants and the enquiry into the appointment has not been concluded because of lack of documents, therefore, for lack of documents, the Appellants cannot be kept out of service. In this background, the Hon’ble Division Bench examined their cases and found that though the order passed by Block Development Officer was interfered with by the Appellate Authority bu