Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 1213 (PAT)

Bhola Kumar v. State of Bihar

2023-11-06

RAJESH KUMAR VERMA

body2023
Rajesh Kumar Verma, J. – Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.9. 2. The present writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner for the following reliefs; – “(I) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to allow the petitioner to work as a Secretary to the Gram Katachahari, Jhajhra under the Block Bankatw, East Champaran as the petitioner was selected/appointed for the post of Secretary of Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa vide appointment/Employment letter dated 11.11.2007 issued under the signature of Sarpanch, Gram Kachahari Jhajhra as contained in Annexure-4 to this writ application. (ii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the Order dated 14.12.2007 corresponding to Memo No. 86 dated 14.12.2007 issued under the signature of Sub-Divisional Officer, Sikrahana as contained in annexure-6 to this writ petition whereby and whereunder the learned S.D.O, Sikrahana vide his Order dated 09.12.2007 cancel the appointment/selection of the petitioner and also directed to make appointment/selection of Serial No.1 from the merit list according to Bihar Gram Katchahari Secretary (Employment Service Condition and Duty) Rule, 2007. (iii) For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashig of the Order dated 02.02.2011 passed by the learned Collector, East Champaran in Misc. Appeal Case No. 37 of 2007 (Bhola Kumar vs. Bhunesh Kumar) as contained in annexure-7 whereby and whereunder confirm the order passed by the S.D.O., Sikrahana (Annexure- 6) and also dismissed the appeal No. 37 of 2007/petition filed by the petitioner.” 3. It is apparent from the record that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 7664 of 2016 challenging the appointment letter dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure-8) by which respondent No.9 has been appointed on the post of Secretary, Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa after canceling the candidature of the petitioner. 4. It is apparent from the record that during the pendency of this writ application, the petitioner has filed an interlocutory application being I.A. No. 7664 of 2016 challenging the appointment letter dated 13.12.2011 (Annexure-8) by which respondent No.9 has been appointed on the post of Secretary, Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa after canceling the candidature of the petitioner. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that pursuant to the advertisement, the petitioner and similarly situated candidates have made application for the post of Secretary, Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa and after due consideration, the petitioner has been selected on the post of Secretary, Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa and consequently, appointment letter has been issued in favour of the petitioner vide letter dated 11.11.2004 (Annexure-4) by the Sarpanch, Gram Katcharari, Jhajhar. Being aggrieved by the appointment of the petitioner, respondent No.9 made a complaint before the S.D.O. Sikrahana, Dhaka who on the basis of complaint of respondent No.9 and after hearing the parties canceling the appointment/selection of the petitioner vide order dated 14.12.2007 (Annexure-6) directed to make selection of the candidate who is figured at serial No.1 of the merit list, who was respondent No.9. Being dissatisfied with the order the S.D.O, Sikrahana, Dhaka, the petitioner has challenged the veracity of the said order vide Misc. Appeal No. 37 of 2007 before the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari, who vide order dated 02.02.2011 after hearing the parties has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner confirming the order dated 14.12.2007 passed by the S.D.O, Sikrahana at Dhaka. 5. Being left with no option and dissatisfied with the order dated 02.02.2011, the petitioner has questioned the said order before this Court by way of the present writ application. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that as per the advertisement, he had submitted all the relevant documents as required in the advertisement, and on due verification and scrutiny, he has been appointed on the post of Secretary Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the respondent No.9 has not submitted the relevant documents at the time of submitting application in terms of the advertisement for the post of Secretary of Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra, despite that the S.D.O. Sikrahana at Dhaka has canceled the appointment of petitioner recommending the name of respondent No.9 for appointment in place of the petitioner. He further draws the attention of this Court towards the fact that according to the advertisement, all candidates were required to submit their attested copies of their original certificates at the time of filing the application but it is the admitted position that the respondent No.9 had not submitted his attested copies of his original certificates at the time of furnishing his application form, which would be evident from Annexures-3 and 5 of the writ application despite that the S.D.O., Sikrahanat at Dhaka as well as District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari failed to appreciate the aforesaid fact and erroneously passed their orders which are unjust, improper and arbitrary and deserve to be quashed. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent-State submits that the impugned order as contained in Annexures-6 and 7 have rightly been passed by the S.D.O., Sikrahana at Dhaka and the District Magistrate, East Champaran, Motihari and there is no infirmity in the order impugned as the private respondent has submitted all the attested documents as required in the advertisement at the time of submission of application. 8. Although respondent No.9 is being represented through his counsel but it appears from the record that the private respondent has not filed any affidavit as of now. 9. Having heard the submission advanced by the respective parties, this Court is of the view that admittedly a merit list of ten candidates has been prepared after the counseling of the candidates, who were applied for the post of Secretary of Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa in which the name of the petitioner has been figured at serial No.7 with aggregate marks of 68.55% and the name of respondent No.9 figured at serial No.4 with aggregate marks of 69.22%. Undoubtedly, the respondent No.9 is considered to be figured at serial No.1 in the merit list with marks of 69.22% being the highest amongst the shortlisted candidates in the counseling and simultaneously, the name of petitioner got figured at serial No.2 with the second highest marks of 68.55% amongst the shortlisted candidates. Undoubtedly, the respondent No.9 is considered to be figured at serial No.1 in the merit list with marks of 69.22% being the highest amongst the shortlisted candidates in the counseling and simultaneously, the name of petitioner got figured at serial No.2 with the second highest marks of 68.55% amongst the shortlisted candidates. Here in the case at hands, the moot question is arisen for the adjudication is whether the candidature of the respondent No.9 is valid in terms of the advertisement as according to the case of the petitioner the respondent No.9 has not fulfilled the important instruction of submission of attested copies of all relevant documents required in terms of the advertisement, which would be evident from the Annexure-3, which is a extract of verification register, to this writ application itself wherein it is recorded in the remarks portion that the respondent No.9 had submitted the attested copies of his original certificates after verification whereas the same are required to be submitted at the time of furnishing of the application for post of Secretary, Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa. At the same time, the petitioner has submitted his attested copies of his relevant certificates at the time of verification. 10. Now, according to the annexure-3, more particularly, clause 3 of the important instruction given in the application form (Annexuer-1 series), the candidature of the respondent No.9 ought to have been canceled or not considered as being not in consonance with the specific instruction and once the candidature of respondent No.9 could have been canceled, the petitioner ought to have been figured at serial No.1 of the merit list and found suitable for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa. 11. In such view of the matter, the impugned orders contained at annexures- 6 and 7 deserve to be quashed as respondent Nos.2 and 4 have failed to appreciate the material fact and erred in passing the impugned orders and the same are accordingly quashed. 12. Accordingly, the respondents-State are directed to reinstate the petitioner forthwith on the post of Secretary, Gram Katchahari, Jhajhra under Block Bankatwa.