Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 502 (PAT)

Sunil Kumar v. State of Bihar

2013-04-15

AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, R.M.DOSHIT

body2013
ORDER R.M. DOSHIT, CJ.:– Interlocutory Application No.4908 of 2012: The delay of 19 days occurred in filing the Letters Patent Appeal is condoned. Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. Letters Patent Appeal No.1134 of 2012: 2. Feeling aggrieved by the order dated 6th April 2012 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6686 of 2012, 15 respondents, out of respondent nos. 10 to 25, have preferred this Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. 3. It is the case of the appellants that pursuant to 2008 selection process the appellants have been appointed as Panchayat Teachers under the Gram Panchayat Raj, Basahiya, Block-Panapur, District-Saran. Their appointments came to be questioned before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Saran (hereinafter referred to as “the Appellate Authority”) in Case No.40-45/2011 and 76/2011. The Appellate Authority, under its order dated 25th November 2011, recorded that the appointment of the appellants was made in order of merit. The names of the complainants appeared amongst the applicants Sl. Nos. 60 to 95. After perusal of the records the Appellate Authority doubted the genuineness of the register insofar as the applicants at Sl. No.60 to 95 were concerned. 4. The order of the Appellate Authority came to be challenged by the complainants in above C.W.J.C. No. 6686 of 2012. The learned single Judge has set aside the order of the Appellate Authority and has directed the Appellate Authority to reconsider the matter and to direct that counseling of all the 95 applicants be made afresh. Therefore, this Appeal. 5. Learned advocate Mr. Sanjay Kumar Mishra has appeared for the appellants. He has submitted that the appointment of the appellants was made in order of merit. The said appointment has been upheld by the Appellate Authority. Further, the appointment of the appellants has been unsettled by the learned single Judge without affording opportunity of hearing to the appellants. He has further submitted that in view of the findings recorded by the Appellate Authority, the learned single Judge has erred in directing a fresh counselling of all the 95 candidates. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Gautam Bose has appeared for the respondent State Government. He has supported the Appeal. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Bindhyachal Singh has appeared for the respondent no.9, the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. 6. Learned counsel Mr. Gautam Bose has appeared for the respondent State Government. He has supported the Appeal. 7. Learned advocate Mr. Bindhyachal Singh has appeared for the respondent no.9, the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. He has submitted that a large scale irregularities were committed in selection of the appellants by the then Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat. The entire selection process is, therefore, required to be conducted anew. 8. Learned advocate Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar has appeared for the respondent nos. 10 to 22. He has submitted that the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat has admitted that in the selection process several irregularities had been committed. The order of the learned single Judge for counselling afresh is, therefore, justified. He has further submitted that the learned single Judge has taken due care for the appellants inasmuch as the learned single Judge has directed that after the remand, the Appellate Authority shall comply with the principles of natural justice. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar has also submitted that pursuant to the impugned order dated 6th April 2012, the matter has been taken by the Appellate Authority, the parties have been heard, the record has been perused and the order is awaited. He has submitted that at this stage this Court should not interfere in the matter. 9. We see no substance in the submission made by Mr. Bindhyachal Singh or Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar. In absence of finding of irregularities recorded by the Appellate Authority and in absence of any material before us indicating any irregularity, we cannot accept the oral submission made by the learned advocates. On the contrary, before the Appellate Authority the then Mukhiya did file affidavit that the proceeding of counselling was recorded in Hindi. Whereas, the names of the candidates at Sl. No. 60 to 95 were written in English. This would necessarily raise a doubt that their names were added subsequently. Besides, the Appellate Authority has also recorded that the dispute had been raised because of the rivalry amongst the then Mukhiya and the present Mukhiya of the Panchayat. It is obvious that the endeavour is to manipulate the appointments and to unsettle the appointments of the appellants made as early as in 2010. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. It is obvious that the endeavour is to manipulate the appointments and to unsettle the appointments of the appellants made as early as in 2010. 10. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 6th April 2012 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 6686 of 2012 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 6686 of 2012 is dismissed.