Allowed

Shila Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And Others

Patna HC27 Aug 2012CWJC/12839/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court held that the District Teacher Niyojan Appellate Tribunal failed its quasi-judicial duty by passing an order ex parte without hearing an affected intervener (assigned candidate) likely to be prejudiced. The writ petition was allowed, Tribunal orders set aside, and the matter remanded for a fresh hearing after impleading all parties.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders of the Tribunal set aside; parties remanded before Tribunal to fix a date for hearing in presence of both parties; Tribunal to dispose afresh within two months.

Shila Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar And Others — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12839 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Shila Kumari Wife Of Sri Nirmal Kumar Singh Resident Of Inarpatpur, P.O. - Pachrukhia, P.S. - Piro, District - Bhojpur

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur At Ara

¶4

The District Education Officer, Bhojpur At Ara

¶5

The Sub-Divisional Officer, Piro, Bhojpur

¶6

The Block Development Officer, Piro, Bhojpur At Ara

¶7

The Block Education Extension Officer, Piro, Bhojpur At Ara

¶8

The Mukhiya, Kataria Panchayat, District - Bhojpur At Ara 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Kataria Panchayat , District - Bhojpur At Ara

¶9

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14929 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Kumari Lalmati D/O Bikramaditya Singh Resident Of Village Govinddih, Police Station Piro, District Bhojpur.

¶10

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Teacher Niyojan Appellate Tribunal, Bhojpur (Near Cirkit House, Ara), Bhojpur. 3. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur, Ara.

¶11

The Block Development Officer, Piro, Bhojpur, Ara.

¶12

The Block Education Officer, Piro, Bhojpur, Ara. 6. Shila Kumari W/O Sri Nirmal Kumar Singh Resident Of Village Inarpatpur, Post Office Pachrukhia, Police Station Piro, District Bhojpur. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.12839 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Om Prakash Upadhyay For the Respondent/s : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad Gp12 (In CWJC No.14929 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surender Prasad Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rishiraj Sinha Gp19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.12839 of 2012 (3) dt.27-08-2012

¶14

¶15

3 27-08-2012

¶16

I.A. No.12839/12 has been filed for permitting one Kumari Lalmati to be added as intervener respondent contending that she is directly affected by the impugned order of the Tribunal. Having considered the submissions on behalf of the intervener and the petitioner along with the State, the I.A. is allowed. She is permitted to be added as intervener respondent.

¶17

The intervener respondent is stated to have preferred C.W.J.C. No.14929/12 assailing the impugned orders also. Learned counsel for the petitioner and the State are not at issue with regard to the same. The writ petition has therefore been taken up for consideration along with the present.

¶18

The petitioner filed case No.676/09 before the Tribunal. It directed her to be included in counseling and added in the merit list. Non-compliance led to the filing of Case No.20/10 by her. Noticing non-compliance of the order in case No.676/09, the Tribunal stayed the appointment on 3.12.2010. When even this was not complied with the order in Appeal Case No.105/11 was passed leading to the issuance of the impugned order dated 17.6.2011.

¶19

The last order is to the effect that if earlier appointments had been stayed on 3.12.2010, the authorities may examine if any candidate had higher marks than the petitioner as in that event the appointment of the person

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.12839 of 2012 (3) dt.27-08-2012

¶21

¶22

with lesser marks automatically stood terminated by reason of the order dated 3.12.2010.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the orders of the Tribunal were not being complied with compelling her to file the writ application.

¶24

Learned counsel for the intervener submits that the petitioner did not disclose before the Tribunal that she was not an applicant for appointment in Gram Panchayat Kataiya and neither did she appear in counseling on 28.2.2009 and that the intervener was selected on 2.2.2009 having the highest marks belonging to the backward community. She appeared at the counseling on 28.2.2009 leading to her appointment on 14.8.2010. She has been working since then and stands to lose her selection and appointment by reason of the order of the Tribunal passed ex parte.

¶25

Learned counsel for the State is in agreement that once a person is appointed if it is found to be wrong for any reason it has to be followed by termination in accordance with law. He is equally in agreement that an appointment which is to be made can be stayed, but if an appointment has already been made it cannot be stayed though it may be terminated. If what the intervener contends be correct and she came to be appointed on 14.8.2010, the question of the Tribunal staying her appointment on 3.12.2010 does not

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.12839 of 2012 (3) dt.27-08-2012

¶27

¶28

arise. The Tribunal appears to have been conscious of the fact that some person appointed was likely to be prejudiced when it directs removal of such person allegedly with lower marks than the petitioner. Naturally, such a person likely to be affected by any order of the Tribunal was a necessary party and had to be heard irrespective of what the final order may have been. The Tribunal was a quasi judicial body. Even if the petitioner did not implead the necessary parties, it was the sacred and bounden duty of the Tribunal to ensure that any affected party was impleaded and heard, as a part of its larger duty to ensure fairness in decision making and dispensation of justice. The Tribunal completely failed in its primary duty leading to avoidable litigation. The contention of the intervener that the petitioner was not an applicant and did not appear for counseling or that the intervener had the highest marks amongst those who appeared for counseling may or may not be correct. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that the contentions of the intervener are relevant materials to be considered during adjudication.

¶29

The orders of the Tribunal in Case No.676/09, 20/10 and 105/11 are therefore set aside.

¶30

The parties are directed to appear before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal at Bhojpur along with a copy of the present order on the 10^th of

¶31

Patna High Court CWJC No.12839 of 2012 (3) dt.27-08-2012

¶32

¶33

September. The order has been passed in presence of the counsel for the petitioner and the intervener respondent. The Tribunal shall then proceed to fix a date of its convenience for hearing in presence of both parties. The Tribunal shall then endeavour to finally dispose of the matter afresh after hearing the parties by a reasoned and speaking order disclosing full application of mind, especially to the facts of the case, within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This writ application stands disposed.

¶34

C.W.J.C. No.14929/12 is disposed as infructuous.

¶35

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶36

K.C.jha/-

Shila Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shila Kumari v. The State Of Bihar And Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Inderdeo Prasad Singh Vs The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission

Usha Rani and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ram Narayan Prasad and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Champara Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anant Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Lalati Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.