Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 202 (PAT)

Saroj Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2013-02-12

AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI

body2013
ORDER Concept of engagement of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was floated under Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, a programme initiated by the Central Government to bring into its ambit as many persons as possible to make them literate. Engagement of what came to be known as Shiksha Mitra under contract was initiated in the year 2003. This contract was for a period of 11 months on a fixed remuneration payable to such persons. Contract was subject to renewal on satisfactory service. Since the remuneration as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was not very lucrative and was fixed as Rs.1500/- per month, there were not many takers for the contract. The floodgate of litigation opened the day the State of Bihar notified rule relating to appointment of what is known as Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Condition) Rules, in the year 2006. By virtue of notification of this Rule as well as change of policy, all those persons whose contract subsisted as on 1.7.2006, by a deeming fiction created in Rule 20 became a Panchayat Teacher which was a kind of permanent engagement under the State. Their terms and conditions of service was now going to be governed by the 2006 Rules and all earlier notifications relating to Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stood repealed. Even the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was no longer available under the State. 2. As already stated above, since appointment as a regular Panchayat Teacher begot better service conditions as well as pay, series of litigations and objections were initiated by persons interested in getting into the slot or position occupied by persons already in the job. Various allegations came to be made against Panchayats in the manner in which such contracts were initiated or engagement on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra made. Initially, the Block Development Officer was the requisite authority to look into such disputes but later on, a Tribunal was constituted by the State to go into such aspects of the matter relating to selection, non- appointment or service related issue arising there from. 3. Initially, the Block Development Officer was the requisite authority to look into such disputes but later on, a Tribunal was constituted by the State to go into such aspects of the matter relating to selection, non- appointment or service related issue arising there from. 3. In the present case as well, an issue was raised by certain persons against the selection of these petitioners at a forum, which finally culminated into an adjudication made by the Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Supaul The Tribunal annulled appointments of these petitioners on the ground that their engagement as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was not done properly by following the roster etc. etc. 4. Naturally, these petitioners are before the High Court challenging the order of the Tribunal contained in Annexure-1 since they have lost their employment after so many years of engagement on an issue which, according to learned senior counsel for the petitioners, is non-issue now. It is his stand that the engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra cannot be opened now. Whatever was required to be done with regard to such contractual engagements should have been done before the persons became Panchayat Teachers on 1.7.2006. The engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra cannot be reopened to deny the benefit of employment as a Panchayat Teacher, which may have been by a deeming fiction, which was conferred upon them. 5. The contention on behalf of the petitioners does merit consideration from various aspects of the matter. One, that the initial engagement was a contractual engagement and if those engagements or contracts were executed by the Panchayat in breach of any law and the same was void or voidable, it ought to have been tested at that time frame when the contract was subsisting. After the period of contract was over, the same cannot be revived and put under any kind of any judicial or quasi judicial scrutiny. 6. The other aspect is that once those persons became Panchayat Teachers with effect from 1.7.2006, the rule or the law conferred upon them certain advantages and service conditions. Any action, which was required to be taken against them, can only be taken within the ambit and parameters of the 2006 Rules and their removal can also be permissible for any omission or commission committed by them after 1.7.2006. Any action, which was required to be taken against them, can only be taken within the ambit and parameters of the 2006 Rules and their removal can also be permissible for any omission or commission committed by them after 1.7.2006. Their status as a Panchayat Teacher cannot be taken away by such adjudication by reopening the issue of an illegal engagement of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra after so many years, especially when such persons got benefit of the status by virtue of a statute or rule which has never been challenged to be arbitrary or violative of any constitutional provision. 7. Even otherwise as a public policy settled things ought not to be unsettled after so many years and unless the Court decisively holds that the issue of wrong engagement of any person as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra cannot be made a subject matter of any scrutiny after 1.7.2006. Persons, who at one point of time did not become Panchayat Shiksha Mitra, would continue to agitate the issue for obvious reasons, which is not required to be said in so many words. 8. In view of totality of the observations made above, the Court comes to a definite opinion that the removal of any person, who had been made a Panchayat Teacher after 1.7.2006, can only be made within the parameters of the 2006 Rules. Any action taken thereafter against their engagement as a Shiksha Mitra will no longer affect their right to continue on the post of a Panchayat Teacher, even if it was on the basis of engagement as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra which was a contractual engagement for a period of 11 months. 9. If anybody is keen in pursuing the matter, the forum for such a person will be a civil court where he can get the said contract tested whether it has violated some kind of law or principles of law of contract. No other forum in this regard is required to entertain any application on such engagement of any person on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and make it the basis of removing a person from the post of Panchayat Teacher. 10. In view of the above, Annexures 1 and 2 stand quashed. The writ application is allowed.