Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1027 (PAT)

Laxman Paswan v. State of Bihar

2012-07-25

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2012
ORDER Though served, the respondent nos. 6 and 8 have not entered appearance. Re. Letters Patent Appeal No. 155 of 2011: 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 13th December 2010 made by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 3043 of 2010, the writ petitioner has preferred this Appeal under Patna High Court LPA No.155 of 2011 (5) dt.25-07-2012 Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. In 2003, the appellant was appointed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the Gram Panchayat Raj Jalwara, P.S.-Keoti, District-Darbhanga. He continued to serve as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra until 1st July 2006. Since 1st July 2006, he stood absorbed as a Panchayat Teacher by operation of Rule 20 (iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. Since his appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and absorption as Panchayat teacher as aforesaid; in 2006, his appointment as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was questioned by the Respondent no. 8. According to the Respondent no. 8 he had better qualifications than the appellant. The appellant could not have been appointed superseding the claim of the respondent no. 8. Pursuant to the aforesaid complaint made by the respondent no. 8 in Janta Darbar, matter was referred to the District Magistrate and then to the District Superintendent of Education. The District Superintendent of Education upheld the contention raised by the respondent no. 8 and held that the appointment of the appellant was bad and illegal. 4. Pursuant to the said finding by the District Superintendent of Education, the appellant approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in C.W.J.C. No. 2092 of 2009. This Court (Coram: Mr. Justice Mihir Kumar Jha), by order dated 11th February 2009, relegated the appellant to the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Darbhanga (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Appellate Authority’) in Complaint Case No. 542 of 2009 upheld the contention of the respondent no. 8. Although the Appellate Authority did take into consideration the lack of credentials; the authority was of the opinion that unless the respondent no. 8 was convicted, he could not be punished pending trial. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Appellate Authority, by order dated 25th February 2011 made by the Panchayat Secretary, service of the appellant as a Panchayat teacher has been terminated. 5. Learned advocate Mr. 8 was convicted, he could not be punished pending trial. Pursuant to the direction issued by the Appellate Authority, by order dated 25th February 2011 made by the Panchayat Secretary, service of the appellant as a Panchayat teacher has been terminated. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Bindhyachal Singh has produced copy of the order dated 25th February 2011 of termination of service of the appellant made by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Jalwara pursuant to the order dated 27th July 2009 made by the Appellate Authority. 6. Copy of the said order be maintained on the record of this Appeal. 7. The challenge to the order of the Appellate Authority in C.W.J.C. No. 3043 of 2010 has failed before the learned single Judge. Therefore, this Appeal. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Bindhyachal Singh has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that although the respondent no. 8 had better qualification, the then Selection Committee, having regard to the criminal prosecution pending against the respondent no. 8 and his credentials, took a conscious decision not to appoint the respondent no. 8 as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and to appoint the appellant as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra (Copy of the said decision is annexed as Annexure-2). 9. We do agree with Mr. Singh. A recruitment process calls for active application of mind. Ordinarily the applicants are selected on the basis of their merits but their antecedents and credentials are not out of place. In respect of the respondent no. 8 there is a categorical observation by the Selection Committee that his conduct in the society was not good; he was mentally not balanced; he had been arrested and sent to jail on several occasions. 10. We are of the opinion that the Selection Committee had rightly not selected the respondent no. 8. With the aforesaid antecedents no candidate can be appointed as a school teacher. The approach of the District Superintendent of Education or the Appellate Authority to blindly follow the merit list ignoring the antecedents of the candidate concerned, is absolutely wrong and not in consonance with the service jurisprudence. The learned single Judge has also failed to notice the above referred antecedents of the respondent no. 8. The appellant could not have been dislodged from his post of Panchayat teacher only on the ground that the respondent no. 8 had better qualification than the appellant. 11. The learned single Judge has also failed to notice the above referred antecedents of the respondent no. 8. The appellant could not have been dislodged from his post of Panchayat teacher only on the ground that the respondent no. 8 had better qualification than the appellant. 11. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 13th December 2010 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 3043 of 2010 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 3043 of 2010 is allowed. The impugned order dated 27th July 2009 made by the Appellate Authority in Complaint Case No. 542 of 2009 and the consequential order of termination of service made by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Jalwara on 25th February 2011, are quashed and set aside. The respondent Gram Panchayat Raj Jalwara is directed to reinstate the appellant as Panchayat teacher as early as possible, but not beyond 30th September 2012. On reinstatement in service, the appellant will be entitled to the benefits such as continuation in service, seniority, increments, if any. 12. It is clarified that the appellant will not be entitled to salary/honorarium as a Panchayat teacher from the date of termination of the service till the date of his reinstatement in service on the principle of ‘no work no pay’. 13. In the event the respondents fail to reinstate the appellant in service by 30th September 2012, commencing from 1st October 2012 the appellant will be entitled to salary/honorarium as a Panchayat teacher. 14. Mr. Bindhyachal Singh has submitted that the appellant has not been paid the salary/honorarium since 2007. The appellant is entitled to the salary/ honorarium for the period till his service was terminated on 25th February 2011. The amount of unpaid salary/honorarium will be paid to the appellant within three months from today.