The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the rejection of an appeal by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal regarding the petitioner's termination and the validity of a rival appointment, noting the lack of specific challenge to the rival appointment.
Writ application dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12684 of 2012
| ====================================================== 1. Binod Kumar Bimal Son Of Deonandan Mahto Resident Of Village - Sundarpur Chaitola, P.S. - Dharahara, District - Munger |
|
|---|---|
| .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Munger Through Its Member 3. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Munger Through Its Member 4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Munger 5. The Block Education Extension Office, Dharahara, Police Station - Dharahara, District - Munger 6. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Bahachouki P.S. Dharahara, District - Munger 7. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Bahachouki, P.S. Dharahara, District - Munger 8. The Head Master, Primary School, Bahachouki, P.S. - Dharahara, District - Munger 9. Sri Nirankush Kumar Son Of Ishwari Mandal Resident Of Village - Bahachouki, Police Station - Dharhara, District - Munger .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER |
|
| 2 23 |
-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and |
| the State. | |
| The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated | |
| 7.5.2012 passed by the District Teachers Employment | |
| Appellate Tribunal, Munger in Appeal Case No. 169 of 2011. It rejects the Appeal. |
|
| The petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra | |
| on 5.6.2005. The duration of the contractual appointment | |
| was for 11 months till 5.5.2006. The fact that he may have | |
| gone on sanctioned leave or whether his resignation was |
Patna High Court CWJC No.12684 of 2012 (2) dt.23-07-2012
2 / 3
submitted on 4.9.2005 and accepted on 12.9.2005 are not considered necessary and appear to have become academic. On the face of the facts, the claims of the petitioner became infructuous after expiry of the contract for 11 months on 5.5.2006 in absence of any renewal. Even if the contract could be renewed it was not a vested automatic right but was dependent on a host of other factors under the Government instructions. It was therefore an inchoate right which may or may not have fructified. No cause of action much less in a Court of law can be based on an inchoate right.
Learned counsel for the petitioner next submitted that in the Appeal he had challenged his termination order dated 2.3.2009. Therefore indirectly any appointment on the vacancy created by his termination was also under challenge. The Tribunal therefore erred in not deciding the validity of the appointment of respondent no. 9. Respondent no. 9 does not appear to have been impleaded as party in Appeal No. 169 of 2011. There is no discussion in the impugned order reflecting that the petitioner had challenged his appointment before the Tribunal. The proceeding in the writ application did not reflect that any challenge was specifically laid out to the appointment of respondent no. 9. A challenge to an appointment has to be specific and with clarity setting out the grounds of illegality to enable the official respondents to answer it as also the candidate concerned
Patna High Court CWJC No.12684 of 2012 (2) dt.23-07-2012
3 / 3
whose appointment was sought to be questioned. Unless they are first made aware of the grounds for challenge, the question of answering it cannot arise. There can be no implied challenge to an order of appointment.
The Court shall not scrutinize the order of the Tribunal on a question not urged before it and which it may have had no occasion to apply its mind.
The writ application is dismissed.
P. Kumar/-
(Navin Sinha, J)
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition challenging termination of appointment and validity of rival appointment is maintainable when grounds against rival appointment were not specifically urged.
Binod Kumar Bimal Son Of Deonandan Mahto
The State Of Bihar
District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal Munger Through Its Member
District Programme Officer Establishment Munger
Block Education Extension Office Dharahara
Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Bahachouki P.S. Dharahara
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
