Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 513 (PAT)

Ashwendra Kumar v. State of Bihar

2012-03-26

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2012
ORDER Both the writ applications have been clubbed together and are being disposed of together as they arise out of a common order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Muzaffarpur in Case No.1796 of 2009, decided on 9.5.2011. The impugned orders are Annexre-6 in both the writ applications. 2. Ashwendra Kumar, who is petitioner in CWJC No. 9844 of 2011, is aggrieved because his appointment as a Panchayat Teacher has been set aside. Therefore, he wants quashing of the order. 3. Satya Narayan Bhagat, who happens to be the respondent in the above writ, is the petitioner in CWJC No.11614 of 2011. He is aggrieved because the tribunal after declaring the appointment of Ashwendra Kumar to be illegal has refused to give a direction for his appointment. He wants a mandamus for his appointment. 4. The matter of appointment relates to the year 2006-2007 in the Gram Panchayat Karnpur South in Bochaha Block of the district Muzaffarpur. Satya Narayan Bhagat approached the High Court by filing a writ application which was CWJC No. 7555 of 2007 but the High Court relegated him to the tribunal to raise his grievance. The primary allegation made in the complaint before the tribunal by the petitioner of CWJC No. 11614 of 2011 is that Ashwendra Kumar’s appointment was faciliatated through the back door despite the petitioner having better claim having higher marks. Things were manipulated to deny him the benefit for extraneous reasons. Large scale interpolations, if not replacement of the records, were done to facilitate appointment of Ashwendra Kumar and the patent illegality in the manner in which such appointment came to be made is in total breach of not only the laid down procedure but even the fair play. 5. The tribunal heard the parties to the dispute, summoned the records, examined the matter and has recorded its findings in a detailed and well considered manner. There are findings that interpolations in records were done. The records of counseling do not indicate signature of any other member. Only the signature of the Mukhiya was present thereto. The original counseling register seems to have been replaced or changed. The reasons for reaching such conclusion is provided in para 5 of the said decision. There are findings that interpolations in records were done. The records of counseling do not indicate signature of any other member. Only the signature of the Mukhiya was present thereto. The original counseling register seems to have been replaced or changed. The reasons for reaching such conclusion is provided in para 5 of the said decision. Other significant finding is that there was major resistance against producing the original records by the Panchayat Secretary and deliberate road blocks were sought to be created to ensure that the truth is not reached. The conduct of the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary have been dealt with in detail in the order. 6. The most significant finding with regard to the appointment of Ashwendra Kumar is given in para 23 of the impugned order. It is on this finding that the tribunal felt that appointment of Ashwendra Kumar is illegal and had to be annulled. 7. Submission of the counsel representing the petitioner Ashwendra Kumar is that the decision of the tribunal is based on ipsi dixit. The inferences drawn against the records are uncalled for. The appointment was made at the relevant time with due procedure followed in this regard and that the private respondent Satya Narayan Bhagat had filed the case as an after thought after much delay. 8. The contention of the private respondent is that findings are based on the records which were made available to the tribunal by the parties to the dispute. He too had managed to furnish various kinds of documents before the tribunal which showed that there was deliberate interpolation, over-writing, tampering with records and the records do not reflect that the selection was done with due co-operation, participation and consent of the Sukh Suvidha Committee and its Member. The whole thing was manipulated at the level of the Panchayat Secretary with due connivance of the Mukhiya. In fact nothing new by way of material has been brought on record by Ashwendra Kumar which can negate or demolish the findings given by the appellate authority. 9. The material provided by Satya Narayan Bhagat to the appellate authority was based on informations which he had obtained under Right to Information Act. Therefore, those informations were authentic documents and they did reflect that something wrong had been committed in the procedure adopted in appointment of Ashwendra Kumar who had lesser marks than him. 9. The material provided by Satya Narayan Bhagat to the appellate authority was based on informations which he had obtained under Right to Information Act. Therefore, those informations were authentic documents and they did reflect that something wrong had been committed in the procedure adopted in appointment of Ashwendra Kumar who had lesser marks than him. The only conclusion which can be reached by the appellate authority in the above background was termination of such illegal appointment. 10. He, however, contends that since he had better marks than Ashwendra Kumar, the natural corollary would be that after his ouster he should be appointed as a Panchayat Teacher, which the Tribunal has not done and this is an error committed by the tribunal. 11. After having heard counsel for the parties to the dispute and having minutely examined the various findings given by the appellate authority the Court has no hesitation in recording that selection of Ashwendra Kumar was per say illegal and in breach of cannons of justice, rules and procedure. If fraud was practiced in the manner such appointment came to be made, then with due respect such appointment stands vitiated and the tribunal has done right thing by annulling the appointment. 12. So far giving a direction in favour of Satya Narayan Bhagat is concerned, the Court is in agreement with the reasoning given by the appellate authority. Since procedure for appointment was vitiated by the manner which was adopted by the Panchayat Secretary as well as Mukhiya, the petitioner of CWJC No. 11614 of 2011 namely, Satya Narayan Bhagat cannot automatically become the beneficiary of such appointment. Obviously, a fresh exercise would be required to be done by due process and in accordance with rules prescribed in this regard. 13. In totality therefore, both the writ applications deserve to be dismissed as there is no illegality in the impugned orders which are under challenge in the two writs. They are dismissed accordingly.