Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 517 (PAT)

Gopal Kumar v. State of Bihar

2014-04-25

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. 2. In this case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 18th October 2011 passed by District Teachers’ Appointment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi whereby and whereunder he has held the appointment of the petitioner to be bad in law. 3. An advertisement was published for appointment of Panchayat Teacher of Mohini Mandal Panchayat. 4. The petitioner made an application for the said post. One Shankar Kumar had also applied for the same post under the Backward category (reserved category). 5. A panel was prepared, instead of treating the petitioner to be applicant of backward category was shown him in the panel as general category candidate and has been deprived of the appointment of the aforesaid post. 6. From the impugned order it shows that the appointment of petitioner has been declared to be illegal on the ground that he scored lesser marks than the persons including Shankar Kumar, respondent no. 9 above him and conveniently their cases were ignored. From the impugned order it appears that the date of counselling was fixed on 28th February 2009 but on that date the candidate above the petitioner did not appear and on the next date i.e. on 29.12.2010 a counselling of backward male category candidate was conducted in which the petitioner appeared. As the petitioner had highest marks among the backward category candidates appeared for counselling, he was selected accordingly. 7. The Appellate Authority has declared his appointment to be illegal on the ground that candidate having better marks than the petitioner, had purposely and conveniently been shown absent. 8. The counsel for the petitioner submits that in fact, the name of Shankar Kumar, respondent no. 9 did not figure in the panel of backward class category and he was treated to be a candidate of general category, as he had never submitted caste certificate of backward class category. He has further submitted that when a panel was pasted on the notice board, Shankar Kumar was required to file an objection but he did not file any objection and on that account, now he cannot be allowed to raise the issue that he was wrongly deprived of consideration for the appointment of Panchayat Teacher. He has further submitted that he has specifically taken the plea of not raising objection about wrong entry of Respondent no. He has further submitted that he has specifically taken the plea of not raising objection about wrong entry of Respondent no. 9 in general category candidate before the Appellate Authority but the Appellate Authority did not decide the issue. 9. Counsel for the other side has submitted that Shankar Kumar, respondent no. 9 had applied for the Panchayat Teacher under the category of backward class which is apparent from his application form, but was wrongly treated to be candidate from the general category rather he was to be considered as a candidate of backward class category. He has further submitted that respondent no. 9 has wrongly been deprived though he has better marks than the present petitioner and further submitted that Respondent no. 9 was misguided on account of a news bulletin published in daily newspaper that for the category of backward class of candidate, a cut off marks for untrained candidate has been fixed at 88.33% and on that account, he did not participate in the counselling. 10. In reply, the counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was treated as general category candidate but he had never objected that his name figured in the panel of general category and as such now he cannot raise his grievance that he was wrongly treated as a general candidate. 11. Having considered the rival contentions of the parties, the matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority for fresh consideration on the following issues:— (i) The Tribunal will decide as to whether after the publication of panel of General category candidate, backward category candidate, Shankar Kumar, respondent no. 9 had filed any objection. (ii) The Tribunal will also decide as to whether such notice was published fixing cut off marks for the general category candidate, backward category candidate and economically backward category candidate, and (iii) If the objection was raised by Shankar Kumar, respondent no. 9 about the panel, what step was taken by the Panchayat Secretary. (iv) Whether the Shankar Kumar, respondent No. 9 had attached with his caste certificate along with his application and if he had filed his caste certificate why his name was not added in the list of backward category candidate? 12. Accordingly, the order dated 18th October 2011 is set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh consideration. (iv) Whether the Shankar Kumar, respondent No. 9 had attached with his caste certificate along with his application and if he had filed his caste certificate why his name was not added in the list of backward category candidate? 12. Accordingly, the order dated 18th October 2011 is set aside and matter is remanded back for fresh consideration. Till final decision by the Appellate Authority, the status quo as on to-day, will be maintained but the payment will be released after the final adjudication by the Appellate Authority. 13. The Appellate Authority is directed to adjudicate the aforesaid issues after giving fresh notice to the parties and complete the process within a period of six months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 14. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of.