Ranju Kumari v. State Of Bihar, Through The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education
2016-04-12
SAMARENDRA PRATAP SINGH
body2016
DigiLaw.ai
JUDGMENT : The petitioner seeks quashing of order dated 15.12.2012, passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority (herein after referred to as ‘the Appellate authority’), Araria by which it has held that the caste of the petitioner namely ‘Chaupal’ does not belong to the Scheduled Caste. 2. Pursuant to advertisement, the petitioner applied for the post of Primary teacher under Scheduled Caste category on the basis of caste certificate, dated 20.03.2006 issued by the Circle Officer, Bhargama, district Araria, showing her to be belonging to Chaupal caste falling within the Scheduled caste. The petitioner was called for counseling on 23.2.2007 along with all the original certificates by the Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kushmaul Block, Bhargama, district Araria. After being satisfied that she belonged to the Scheduled Caste category, she was issued appointment letter and was allowed to join the post of Panchayat Teacher on 25.2.2007 which was accepted by the Block Education Officer. However, on a general complaint, the Block Development Officer cum Appellate authority cancelled the appointment vide order dated 4.5.2008. Petitioner challenged the said order in C.W.J.C.No. 10238 of 2008 which was disposed of on 12.9.2011 with a direction to the newly constituted Appellate authority to decide the same after hearing all the parties. On remand, the appellate authority cancelled the appointment of the petitioner taking a view that Chaupal caste does not come within the Scheduled caste category. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the instant writ petition. 3. The matter came up for hearing on 1.3.2016 on which date this Court after hearing the parties passed following order:- “The petitioner submits that the Appellate Tribunal erred in law in holding that Chaupal caste does not come within the category of Scheduled Castes. In support of his submission, the petitioner has referred to Government notification contained in Annexure-6 to substantiate his point that Chaupal caste falls within the Scheduled Castes category. I find that the Chaupal caste is listed at serial no.7 of Annexure-6. The facts of the case in short is that the petitioner secured appointment as a Scheduled Castes category, belonging to Chaupal caste. A complaint was filed that petitioner does not belong to Chaupal caste, but belongs to Tanti caste, which admittedly falls within Extremely Backward Class Category.
I find that the Chaupal caste is listed at serial no.7 of Annexure-6. The facts of the case in short is that the petitioner secured appointment as a Scheduled Castes category, belonging to Chaupal caste. A complaint was filed that petitioner does not belong to Chaupal caste, but belongs to Tanti caste, which admittedly falls within Extremely Backward Class Category. The Tribunal found that the petitioner belongs to Chaupal caste, however, he erred in coming to the conclusion that Chaupal caste does not come within the Scheduled Castes category. The petitioner submits that even assuming that he belongs to Tanti castes, still he would be stand protected under the Resolution no. 9532 dated 01.07.2015, which has brought the Tanti caste within the category of Scheduled Castes. The petitioner submits that in view of aforesaid resolution if any benefit has been secured in the past, he would continue to derive so and the same would not be curtailed or taken away. The petitioner in support of his submission has annexed Resolution no. 9532 dated 01.07.2015, as contained in annexure-10 to the supplementary affidavit and order dated 22.07.2015, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 14740 of 2014 and other analogous cases. As prayed for by learned counsel for the state, put up this case after three weeks under the heading “For Orders” with a view to its final disposal.” 4. Nothing has come on the materials on record to suggest that the Chaupal caste does not come within the SC category. In this view of the matter, the impugned order of the Appellate Tribunal so far as it relates to the petitioner is set aside and the petitioner is directed to be reinstated in service with all the consequential benefits. The writ petition is thus allowed.