Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 157 (PAT)

Dewta Kumari v. State of Bihar

2013-02-01

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2013
ORDER 1. Heard counsel for the parties including the State. 2. Petitioner’s engagement as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra has been held to be bad in the year 2008 vide order dated 31.7.2008 issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Sonapur (Matihani). This order, contained in Annexure-7, is being challenged by the petitioner to be arbitrary, beyond jurisdiction and on misunderstanding of the actual state of affairs. 3. From reading of Annexure-7 it is evident that the Panchayat Secretary took this action on the basis of a so-called enquiry report generated on 2.4.2008 by the Block Education Extension Officer, Matihani. The reason for tendering such a report is the complaint or the petition filed by private respondent Raj Kumar Yadav, when he was not appointed on the post of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in the year 2003 despite having more marks than the present petitioner. It is alleged that the Panchayat unnecessarily rejected the claim of the private respondent on one pretext or the other. Therefore, he obviously had a better right or claim vis-à-vis the present petitioner and she ought to have been removed and the private respondent appointed. 4. Admitted position is that the engagement of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra used to be on a contract basis for 11 months subject to renewal. After 2003 renewals of contract of petitioner have been in place and when the appointment rules relating to the Panchayat Teacher came in place in the year 2006, by a deeming fiction those persons who were working as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra became a Panchayat Teacher. Once such a position was acquired the question which arises for consideration is whether a person could be removed from the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra now which was any way a contractual appointment. 5. In the opinion of this Court, no removal could be ordered retrospectively from the post of a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, especially of a person who had become a Panchayat Teacher w.e.f. 1.7.2006. The illegality in such selection or engagement was not a continuing one. The illegality ended at the end of the term of the first engagement. If the petitioner was given re-appointment after expiry of the first engagement in the year 2003, no objection could be raised with regard to the first engagement as that contract had ended. The illegality in such selection or engagement was not a continuing one. The illegality ended at the end of the term of the first engagement. If the petitioner was given re-appointment after expiry of the first engagement in the year 2003, no objection could be raised with regard to the first engagement as that contract had ended. At best an objection ought to have been raised when the contract was re-worked in favour of the petitioner in the year 2004. 6. Besides that, once a person acquires the status of a Panchayat Teacher w.e.f. 1.7.2006, the rules and regulations governing such appointment take over. Any removal from the post will be in accordance with the rules laid down in the year 2006 and for all practical purposes all transactions in relation to engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra ends and cannot be a subject matter of enquiry as such, at least for such person who had become a Panchayat Teacher in the year 2006. 7. In totality therefore, the Court comes to a considered opinion that issuance of Anneuxre-7 or an enquiry report generated by the Block Education Extension Officer was uncalled for exercise amounting to nothing. 8. Annexure-7, therefore, is quashed. Writ application is allowed. 9. Petitioner would not be disturbed from functioning once she reports back to said Panchayat with a copy of this order.