Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 202 (PAT)

Anusha Kumari v. State of Bihar

2012-02-02

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2012
ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA) Having heard counsel for the parties and taking into account that the dispute in hand relates to appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak between the petitioner and the private respondent no.9 only on the aspect that petitioner being the best among all the candidates on the basis of marks secured in the qualifying examination was edged out by the respondent no. 9 by use of two experience certificates produced by her (Respondent no. 9), this Court has examined the materials on record including the aforesaid two certificates of the Respondent no. 9. It is really shocking for this Court to note that the District Teachers Appellate Authority hereinafter referred to as the Authority instead of disapproving such award of 20 marks to respondent no.9 for those two experience certificates has rejected the claim of the petitioner on a very flimsy ground, namely, that the two experience certificates produced by respondent no.9 were not forged. 2. The plain and simple case of the petitioner was that she had secured 66.2% marks in the qualifying Intermediate Examination as against 50% marked obtained by respondent no.9 but respondent no.9 having been given 20 weightage point for two experience certificates was allowed to become the first candidate over the petitioner. The gist of the allegation of the petitioner, therefore in her complaint was that the two experience certificates of the Respondent no. 9 were not worth consideration and in this regard what was said by her describing the two experience certificates to be forged was to be understood by the Authority in the context of contents of those two certificates. The two certificates are on record by way of Annexures 5 and 6. In one of those two certificates (Annexure-5) it is said that the petitioner, whose date of birth is admittedly 25.2.1985 and who had passed the qualifying examination of Madhyama and Intermediate Examination in the year 2002, was infact already working as a selected 'Shiksha Premi' between 14.8.1996 to 31.3.1998 in Prathmik Vidyalaya, Kurtha. In one of those two certificates (Annexure-5) it is said that the petitioner, whose date of birth is admittedly 25.2.1985 and who had passed the qualifying examination of Madhyama and Intermediate Examination in the year 2002, was infact already working as a selected 'Shiksha Premi' between 14.8.1996 to 31.3.1998 in Prathmik Vidyalaya, Kurtha. That would literally mean that respondent no.9 at the age of 11 years was working in a school as a Shiksha Premi while imparting education to the students of the school which in fact is not only impossible but also absurd, inasmuch as a girl of 11 years could have never been engaged by any authority in the Bihar Education Project. If such certificate was considered for appointing respondent no.9 by giving weightage point, the same was definitely in conflict with the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006 wherein 20 weightage point was to be given for teaching experience of one or more years of service. Rule 9(v) being relevant in this regard is quoted hereinbelow: “(V) <span class="Hfont">iapk;r f'k{kd ds fu;kstu gsrq iSuy& ¼d½ iapk;r f'k{kd ds fu;kstu gsrq iSuy xzke iapk;r ds eqf[k;k dh v/;{krk esa xfBr lfefr ds }kjk es/kk vadksa ds vk/kkj ij rS;kj fd;k tk;sxkA es/kk vadksa dh x.kuk fuEu izdkj dh tk;sxh& ¼1½ eSfVªd@mPprj ek/;fed@b.VjehfM;V&izkIrkad dk izfr’kr ¼2½ nks o”khZ; izf’k{k.k@ch0,y0,M0 & izkIrkad dk izfr’kr ijUrq ;fn dksbZ vH;FkhZ us nks o”khZ; izf’k{k.k rFkk ch0,y0Mh0 nksuksa dh fMxzh izkIr fd;k gks rks muds }kjk nkok fd;s x;s fdlh ,d izf’k{k.k ds izkIrkad ds izfr’kr dks es/kk vad esa tksM+k tk;sxkA 1¿ ¼[k½ [k.M ¼d½ ds 1 vkSj 2 dks tksM+dj rFkk tksM+ dks nks ls Hkkx nsus ij tks izfr’kr gksxk] ogh vH;FkhZ dk es/kk vad gksxk% ijUrq fu;e 4 ds mi&fue ¼2½ esa mfYyf[kr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds ekeys esa 1 o”kZ ;k vf/kd f’k{k.k vuqHko ds fy, 20 vad muds es/kk vad esa tksM+s tk;saxsA** (underlining for emphasis) 3. As would be apparent it was the teaching experience of a person which had to be given additional weightage. The question therefore would be whether a girl of 11 years could have been ever engaged as a teacher even in Bihar Education Project or could have participated in teaching work in any Primary School. As would be apparent it was the teaching experience of a person which had to be given additional weightage. The question therefore would be whether a girl of 11 years could have been ever engaged as a teacher even in Bihar Education Project or could have participated in teaching work in any Primary School. An obvious answer will always be in negative inasmuch as a person who had not been even became major and had not passed either Madhyama (Matriculation) or Intermediate examination at the time of being working allegedly as a teacher (Shiksha Premi) in a Primary School could have never been merit points for teaching work. 4. Similarly the other certificate (Annexure-6) issued by the District Mass Education Officer, Rohtas as with regard to utilizing the services of the petitioner as an Instructor/ Shiksha Sevi for the period 16.12.1999 to 21.12.2001 could not have qualified for grant of weightage point toward the teaching experience of respondent no.9. Not only on 16.12.1999 respondent no.9 was aged about 14 years but even otherwise she was not having any qualification either of Matriculation or of Intermediate and accordingly, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that even this experience certificate could not have been taken into account for grant of weightage point for her alleged teaching experience. 5. Once these conclusions are inescapable from a threadbare analysis of the aforesaid two certificates the obvious conclusion would be that the petitioner, having obtained 66.2% marks was a better candidate than Respondent no. 9 having only 50% marks in qualifying examination and therefore, the petitioner ought to have been selected and appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher in preference to the petitioner. It is unfortunate that this simple aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the Member of the District Teachers Appellate Authority. Such Member of the District Teachers Appellate Authority infact does not deserve to be continued in service, inasmuch as the Authority came to be constituted as an impartial body by substituting the executive authorities only to decide the question relating to service condition including appointment on the post of Panchayat teacher in a fair and objective manner. Such Member of the District Teachers Appellate Authority infact does not deserve to be continued in service, inasmuch as the Authority came to be constituted as an impartial body by substituting the executive authorities only to decide the question relating to service condition including appointment on the post of Panchayat teacher in a fair and objective manner. The manner in which the Member of the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Rohtas while passing the impugned order dated 6.10.2010 in Appeal Case No. 57 of 2010 has conducted himself would call for stern action and therefore, this Court would accordingly direct the Principal Secretary of Human Resources Development Department to take suitable action against the said Member of the District Teachers Appellate Authority, Rohtas for his immediate remove ofcourse in accordance with law. 6. Be that it may, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the two experience certificates of respondent no.9, as contained in Annexures 5 and 6, were fit to be rejected by the appointing authority as also by the District Teachers Appellate Authority. The net conclusion, therefore, would be that the petitioner would be the most suitable candidate in the list of ten candidates all belonging to Scheduled Caste category as shown in the merit list produced by the respondent State at page 35 of the counter affidavit and definitely much better than respondent no.9 specially when in course of counseling only the petitioner and respondent no.9 had appeared for the said one post of Panchayat Teacher reserved for Scheduled Caste category. 7. That being so, the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority, as contained in Annexure 11 as also the order of appointment of respondent no.9 are hereby quashed and the official respondents particularly Mukhia and Panchayat Secretary are directed to conduct fresh counselling of the petitioner for the post of Panchayat Teacher in question vacated on account of removal of Respondent no. 9 and appoint the petitioner if she is found to be fulfilling the requirement of the post of Panchayat Teacher as prescribed in 2006 Rules, within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 8. In the result this writ application, to the extent indicated above, is allowed. 9. Let a copy of this order be sent to the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Patna for its strict compliance.