Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 461 (PAT)

Jiwan Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2012-03-15

MIHIR KUMAR JHA

body2012
ORAL ORDER Heard counsel for the parties. 2. Assailing the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Purnea dated 6.5.2009 learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error in determining the caste of the petitioner. He has submitted that the Tribunal being a forum of limited jurisdiction had no jurisdiction nor competence to decide the caste of the petitioner, inasmuch as such issue could have been decided only by a Civil Court. He has further submitted that the petitioner actually belongs to backward caste and that his appointment made on the post of Panchayat Teacher reserved for the backward caste did not suffer from any error so as to be interfered by the Authority. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that if there was any dispute with regard to the two caste certificates of the petitioner, the Tribunal in all fairness ought to have examined the Block Development Officer before determining the caste of the petitioner. 3. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, having filed the counter affidavit has submitted that the petitioner had made his own declaration in the application filed by him for the post of Panchayat Teacher stating that he belonged to extremely backward category and not only that, he had also supported his such claim by enclosing a certificate of the Sub-divisional Officer dated 11.4.2005. He has accordingly submitted that the subsequent certificate dated 11.10.2007 issued by the Block Development Officer declaring the petitioner to be belonging to backward category being of the same date on which the petitioner was selected and appointed by the Mukhiya and Panchayat Sachiv by itself would go to show that the original declaration made by the petitioner of his caste at the time of filing of his application was sought to be changed only because the petitioner in the meantime could come to know that the vacancy in question was meant for backward category candidate and not for extremely backward category candidate. He has accordingly submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal as with regard to production of a forged caste certificate by the petitioner does not suffer from any error. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner’s caste was already declared by him when he had filed his application for the post of Panchayat Teacher on 30.8.2006. He has accordingly submitted that the finding recorded by the Tribunal as with regard to production of a forged caste certificate by the petitioner does not suffer from any error. 4. In the considered opinion of this Court the petitioner’s caste was already declared by him when he had filed his application for the post of Panchayat Teacher on 30.8.2006. From the application filed by the petitioner in his own handwriting in the prescribed proforma it is more than clear that the petitioner had claimed his appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher against a post of reserved category by declaring himself to be a member of extremely backward category. In fact the said application was also accompanied by a caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer, Purnea dated 11.4.2005 wherein the petitioner was shown to be belonging to extremely backward category (Annexure I). The procedure for appointment of Panchayat Teacher requires preparation of a merit list for each of the post and obviously if the petitioner had declared himself on 30.8.2006 to be candidate of extremely backward category, his selection and appointment could not have been made for the post of teacher of backward category. 5. Moreover the counseling for the said post according to the petitioner had taken place earlier, whereafter a merit list was issued on 11.10.2007 vide Annexure 1 to the writ application. In the said merit list the petitioner is shown to be at serial No.1 by declaring his caste to be Kurmi and belonging to backward category. A question would arise as to where from the Panchayat could have the information of the petitioner being Kurmi by caste and belonging to backward category when his own application dated 30.8.2006 had categorically mentioned of his belonging to extremely backward category on the basis of his being Dhanuk by caste also as supported in the accompanying caste certificate issued by the Sub-divisional Officer on 11.4.2005. The answer to the same was infact found by the Tribunal by way of discovery of a caste certificate dated 1.10.2007 issued by the Block Development Officer, Purnea East which was filed by the petitioner on 11.10.2007, surprisingly the same date on which the merit list was prepared. 6. The question would be who was trying to influence the preparation of the merit list by changing the caste of the petitioner? 6. The question would be who was trying to influence the preparation of the merit list by changing the caste of the petitioner? The petitioner’s own declaration was that he belonged to extremely backward category and there was no notice given to the petitioner to submit his fresh caste certificate. The obvious conclusion, therefore, would be that the petitioner having come to know that the post in question was meant only for a backward category candidate had come out with a fresh caste certificate claiming to be Kurmi in placed of Dhanuk which could not have been entertained by the Panchayat. 7. That in fact will not be end of the matter. It is the finding of the Tribunal that the petitioner’s own declaration of belonging to Dhanuk by caste supported by the caste certificate issued by the S.D.O. was sought to be changed at his instance with a further claim of belonging to Kurmi by caste. Obviously the petitioner could not belong to both the caste and therefore, the second caste certificate of being Kurmi produced by the petitioner in presence of his own first certificate of being Dhanuk produced by him alone would not inspire confidence. 8. The Tribunal was only required to look into the fairness of selection process and it was satisfied that the petitioner’s own declaration in the application form of belonging to extremely backward category supported by the caste certificate of belonging to Dhanuk was sought to be changed at the last minutes by production of another caste certificate of his being Kurmi. The conclusion therefore reached by the Tribunal does not suffer from any error. 9. In fact the Tribunal ought to have in such a situation drawn adverse inference against the Block Development Officer who is said to have issued the second caste certificate on 11.10.2007. That being been not done, this Court would direct the Collector of Purnea District now to make an enquiry as to under what circumstances the second caste certificate dated 1.10.2007 was issued by the Block Development Officer, Purnea East when an earlier caste certificate issued by the same Officer in Certificate No. 851 dated 9.4.2005 had led to issuance of the first caste certificate by the Sub-divisional Officer, Purnea as with regard to the petitioner belonging to Dhanuk by caste and a member of extremently backward category. The matter being serious, if the Collector would find that the B.D.O., Purnea East either on his own or in collusion with the petitioner had issued the second forged certificate as with regard to the caste of the petitioner he would also direct for institution of the F.I.R. against the erring persons as also initiating a departmental proceeding for major punishment against the erring officials/employees. 10. Be that as it may, since the petitioner had obtained his appointment on the basis of a forged caste certificate other than one on which his application was initially filed, this Court would not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 11. That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.