Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 912 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar

2012-07-03

NAVIN SINHA

body2012
ORDER 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 02.04.2012 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Supaul in Case No. 47 of 2011. It rejects the claim of the petitioner challenging the appointment of respondent no. 11. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has dealt with the matter on merits and also on the question of limitation. If a benefit has been obtained by any person on basis of fraud, limitation, which is more of a matter of procedure cannot be a bar at all. 4. It is next submitted that the order of the Tribunal itself notices that in the counselling register there was no entry against the name of respondent no. 11 with regard to his experience certificate while there was an entry to that effect in the case of the petitioner. In the merit list there was a mention of an experience certificate against the name of respondent no. 11. The counselling register was prepared after the merit list. The Tribunal did not take any conclusive decision and left the issue of the experience certificate of respondent no. 11 undecided for the respondents to consider and yet rejected the claim of the petitioner. In other words, the Tribunal has refused to decide issues and dismissed the Appeal. Without further more, it is submitted that the order of the Tribunal is conditional in nature itself. It has directed the authorities to examine as a matter of fact if respondent no. 11 was possessed of a valid experience certificate or not. If the authority comes to the conclusion that he was not possessed of a valid experience certificate, the petitioner having challenged his appointment, the benefit naturally has to be given to the petitioner. The dismissal of his Appeal is in the background of a conditional order. 5. Counsel for the State submits that even if the appointment of respondent no. 11 is found to be not sustainable on the issue of the experience certificate if may require a fresh advertisement. The petitioner cannot claim a right of appointment. 6. The Court does not concur with the submission on behalf of the State. 5. Counsel for the State submits that even if the appointment of respondent no. 11 is found to be not sustainable on the issue of the experience certificate if may require a fresh advertisement. The petitioner cannot claim a right of appointment. 6. The Court does not concur with the submission on behalf of the State. If a panel was drawn up and the benefit to the petitioner was to be denied on basis of it having been granted to another which on a subsequent inquiry is found to be wholly unsustainable having an analogy to a fraud, when the candidate may not have been possessed of a valid experience certificate, the petitioner having pursued the matter diligently including under the R.T.I. Act, the Court is not satisfied that it is a matter which shall invite fresh selections. If the petitioner is available, he naturally has to be considered first in that event. 7. The authorities are directed to comply the order of the Tribunal by passing necessary and final orders with regard to the experience certificate of the candidate appointed. Subsequent action in so far as the petitioner is concerned, will remain dependent on the same. 8. Let this order be complied with by the respondent no. 6 within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. The application stands disposed.