Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1112 (PAT)

Sanjay Kumar v. State of Bihar

2014-11-10

CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

body2014
ORDER The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 10.07.2010 passed by the Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Madhepura in Appeal No. 26/2009 and Appeal No. 10/2010 whereby and whereunder the Appellate Authority has declared all appointments made by the Panchayat Appointment Committee of Gram Panchayat, Rahata in the district of Madhepura as illegal on the ground that the Selection Committee which prepared the panel of candidates was not constituted in accordance with the statutory provisions as contained in Rule 9(v) of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. 2. This is not in dispute that the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat was not a Member of the Committee, which prepared the panel and recommended the names of candidates including this petitioner, for appointment as Panchayat Shikshak with respect to twelve persons whose appointments have been cancelled. Rule 9(V) of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 envisages that a committee presided over by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat will prepare a panel on the basis of merit points of the candidates. Rule 9(V) of 2006 Rules provide for the Constitution of Selection Committee for the purpose of preparation of panel of eligible candidates for appointment of Panchayat Teachers. As per the said provision Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat would be the Chairman of such Committee for the purpose of preparation of panel. 3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has not disputed this fact that Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat was not a party to the preparation of the panel on the basis of which the petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Teacher. 4. In my opinion, since constitution of the Selection Committee itself was contrary to the statutory rules, recommendation made by such Committee cannot be sustained and appellate authority has rightly set aside all such appointments. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat was on strike on the “alleged” date of counselling and, therefore, in his absence a Committee consisting of members other than the Mukhiya prepared the panel and recommended names of the petitioner and other persons. However, there is no such averment in the writ application that on the said date of counselling he was on strike with other Mukhiyas of the same district. However, there is no such averment in the writ application that on the said date of counselling he was on strike with other Mukhiyas of the same district. There is statement that on the alleged date of counselling, the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat had gone to some other place for urgent and personal work. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that the son of the Mukhiya was also an applicant in the said proceeding and, therefore, Mukhiya might have abstained from the meeting of the Selection Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that petitioner on the basis of merit points was duly selected by the Panchayat Committee, though in the absence of the Mukhiya. 6. There is no specific pleading in the writ application that because son of the Mukhiya was also an applicant, the Mukhiya abstained from the proceeding of the Selection Committee. 7. I do not find illegality in the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Madhepura whereby the Authority has cancelled appointment of all candidates appointed on the basis of recommendation made by a Selection Committee not constituted in accordance with the statutory provisions. 8. It appears that aggrieved by selection of the petitioner and other persons, some aspirants, namely, Deepak Kumar, Navin Kumar, Ravindra Kumar, Kumari Sadhna Rani, Anita Kumari and Madhu Kumari approached the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Madhubani by filing Appeal No. 26/2009 and 10/2010. The Appellate Authority on the basis of appeals preferred by them passed the impugned order which has been challenged in the present writ application. 9. This application was filed on 30.08.2010 without impleading the persons (who had preferred appeals before the Appellate Authority) as parties Respondents, this matter was earlier taken up on 20.04.2011. Adjournment was sought on the ground of illness of learned counsel for the petitioner for a week. It appears that thereafter no steps were taken to get the matter listed or for early hearing. On 15.09.2014, learned counsel for the petitioner sought two weeks’ adjournment for considering the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State. I must indicate here that the State Respondents did not have any role to play in the present facts and circumstances of the case as the writ application is directed against an order of quasi judicial authority constituted under Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. 10. I must indicate here that the State Respondents did not have any role to play in the present facts and circumstances of the case as the writ application is directed against an order of quasi judicial authority constituted under Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. 10. When the matter was taken up on 03.11.2014, again a prayer was made for filing reply to the counter affidavit and accordingly the matter was adjourned till 10.11.2014. Till date no reply to the Counter Affidavit has been filed. This Court is prima facie of the view that for one reason or the other, attempts have been made to linger the matter unnecessarily. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that because of lack of instructions from the petitioner, steps could not be taken in compliance of this Court’s order. The conduct of the petitioner is reprehensible. 11. In such view of the matter, this application is dismissed with a cost of rupees ten thousand to be deposited in the account of Patna High Court Legal Services Committee within a period of four months from today. Place the matter under the heading ‘To Be Mentioned’ to report compliance of the order as regards payment of cost after four months.