Dismissed

Anil Ram and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Jul 2012CWJC/11985/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging an order cancelling two teachers' appointments and directing fresh counseling. The court held that large-scale irregularities, tampering with merit lists, and procedural defects vitiated the selection process, warranting no interference but noting that validity of future appointments remains a question.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; no interference with Tribunal order cancelling appointments and directing fresh counseling.

Anil Ram and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11985 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Anil Ram S/O Lal Bahadur Ram Resident Of Village- Jhakhari, PostJhakhara, P.S- Amnaur, District- Saran. 2. Kamlesh Kumar S/O Siwani Ram Resident Of Village- Nayi Bazar Chhoti Masjid, Post + P.S- Bhagwan Bazar, District- Saran. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶3

The State Of Bihar 2. The District Education Officer, Kishanganj. 3. The District Teacher Employment Authority, Kishanganj Through Its Member, P.S+ District- Kishanganj. Null Null 4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Block+ P.S- Tedha Gachh, District- Kishanganj.

¶4

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Neeraj Nandan Gp20 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶5

2 16-07-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners and the State.

¶6

The two petitioners are aggrieved by the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Kishanganj, dated 23.12.2011 passed in Complaint Case No. 377 of 2011. It cancels the entire appointments including that of the petitioners made in the Block, and directs fresh counseling of the same candidates, preparation of a fresh provisional merit list inviting of objections and final publication of the same as provided under the Rules.

¶7

Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that the only infirmity in the appointment of the petitioners is that the appointment letter was not signed by the Block Development Officer. There are no other allegations of any procedural infirmity in the selection of the petitioners or that they had been given wrong marks, or that persons with higher marks were ignored. Even if there had been any infirmity in the selection process and any wrong

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.11985 of 2012 (2) dt.16-07-2012

¶9

¶10

appointment had been made such appointments were required to be identified and proceeded with rather then en masse termination of valid appointments also. Reliance is placed on 2004 (1) PLJR 12 (SC) [Union of India v. Rajesh P.U. Thubalnikathu) and (1998) 4 SCC 37 (K. Vijaylakshmi v. Union of India).

¶11

Learned Counsel for the State relies on the findings of facts arrived at by the Tribunal that there had been large scale irregularities in the selection process. The Court may not interfere if the Tribunal itself has directed participation of the petitioners again in the limited fresh selection process. It is not the case of the petitioners that orders have been passed behind their back.

¶12

The order of the Tribunal adequately formulates the nature of irregularities in the selection process.

¶13

(a) The appointment letter was not signed by the competent authority under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules 2006. Under the government circular signature of the Executive Officer was mandatory; (b) The then Block Education Extension Officer cum Secretary, Block Teachers Panel Committee, had put whitener over names of several candidates suggesting tampering; (c) The final merit list did not contain the signature of the Member Executive Officer raising doubts about its correctness. All these vitiated the selection process.

¶14

The findings of the Tribunal are that many of the candidates found

¶15

no place in the merit list. Several persons with lesser marks had been

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.11985 of 2012 (2) dt.16-07-2012

¶17

¶18

appointed. Names had been inserted of certain candidates by use of whitener in a manner so as to grant them illegal benefits. The then Block Education Extension Officer had tampered with the merit list by using whitener without obtaining consent of the other committee members. Such names superimposed after use of whitener had also been provided appointment. There was discrepancy between the marks in the merit list and the actual marks that should have been awarded to selected candidates. Joint signature of the members of the selection committee was wanting. The signature of the Executive officer was wanting on the select list. The decision as mentioned in the working register with regard to the cut off marks had not been followed at the time of selection. The Tribunal on the aforesaid facts arrived at its satisfaction to cancel the entire selection. It has then directed that the application and defect in the same shall be examined under the supervision of the District Education Officer, who shall then organise fresh counseling and prepare a provisional merit list. After publication of the same, objection shall be invited and then a final merit list be prepared. Counseling for appointment be held in presence of the District Education Officer, Block Extension Officer and Block Education Officer followed by appointment in accordance with law. The direction had been given a time bound frame.

¶19

The infirmity noticed by the Tribunal in the selection process returning a finding that not only were the procedures under the rules violated but that the select list appear to have been tampered cannot be considered with casualness or microscopic scrutiny and is an infirmity inherently vitiating the entire selection process. The issue for consideration shall be that given the nature of the findings of facts, can the petitioners claim that under no circumstances can their candidature come under the rescrutiny again. Whether they would be terminated or continued in service

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.11985 of 2012 (2) dt.16-07-2012

¶21

¶22

is premature at this stage. If their cases fall in the category of persons whose appointment did not meet the strict requirement of the law, no relief may be possible. But if it is found that their appointments were valid they shall certainly be entitled to full benefits of continuity and seniority etc.

¶23

Preparation of merit list for appointment contrary to rules, not signed by the members of the selection committee, absence of necessary signature in the appointment letter, use of whitener in the merit list for insertion of names read together alone raise enough serious questions of law and facts for which the order of the Tribunal merits no interference.

¶24

In absence of any specific finding by the Tribunal that the irregularities did not vitiate the selection of candidates in the reserved category the Court finds it difficult to accept that submission on behalf of the petitioners to keep them out of fresh scrutiny. The submission that the report of the committee headed by District Collector, called for by the Tribunal was not furnished to the petitioner does not impress the Court.

¶25

In the case of Rajesh P.U. Thubaklnikathu (supra) the facts were entirely different. Directions came to be given noticing that there were no serious grievance of any malpractice and the errors occurred more on account of the manner the questions were dictated through a loudspeaker. The only error was with regard to grant of appropriate marks to some and denial of marks for the same to others.

¶26

In K. Vijaylakshmi (supra) the facts were entirely different. The candidature was set aside on account of non supply of forensic report. It was not a case of large scale irregularities leading to cancellation of entire selection.

¶27

The Court therefore finds no merit to interfere with the impugned order. The writ application is therefore dismissed but with the observations in context of the petitioners, if ultimately their appointments are found to be

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.11985 of 2012 (2) dt.16-07-2012

¶29

¶30

not vitiated.
(Navin Sinha, J)
Snkumar/-

Anil Ram and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anil Ram and Anr. v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Md.Kalamuddin Ansari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Yogendra Kumar Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Fakir Chand Ram and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.shambhu Prasad @ Shambhu Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nawal Kishore Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Amit Prakash Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.