In a writ petition regarding alleged illegal termination, the Patna High Court held that a Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to terminate the petitioner's appointment when the substantive challenge to that appointment in the appeal before it was dismissed.
The impugned order terminating the petitioner's appointment was quashed; reinstatement follows.
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.12872 of 2012
====================================================== 1. Satyendra Kumar S/O Sri Nageshwar Prasad R/O Village- Manikpur, P.S.- Harnaut, District- Nalanda
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Kishanganj 3. The District Programme Officer, Kishanganj 4. The Block Development Officer Cum Appellate Officer Panchayat (Primary Teacher Niyojan), Terahgachh, District- Kishanganj 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kishanganj 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Raj Chilhania Panchayat, P.S.Terahgachh, District- Kishanganj 7. The Mukhiya, Panchayat Raj, Chilhania Panchayat P.S.- Terahgachh, District- Kishanganj 8. Md. Imran S/O Late Md. Hafizuddin R/O Village- Singhari, P.O.Singhari, Via Sontha, District- Kishanganj 9. Deo Narain Singh S/O Late Mahavir Prasad Singh R/O Village- Aambari, P.O.- Matiyari, Via- Bahadurganj, P.S.- Terahagachh, District- Kishanganj 10. Ratan Kumar S/O Sri Upendra Lal Das R/O Ashrampura, Thakurganj, P.O.- Thakurganj, P.S.- Thakurganj, District- Kishanganj 11. Md. Adil Akhtar S/O Abu Sayeed R/O Village- Baigna, P.S.Terahagachh, District- Kishanganj .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sandeep Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Namrta Mishra Gp17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER
Patna High Court CWJC No.12872 of 2012 (2) dt.31-07-2012
2
Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he was appointed on 24.4.2007. On a controversy the Block Development Officer, the then statutory authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006, by an order dated 7.12.2007 upheld the appointment of the petitioner. Subsequently by reason of an order passed in CWJC No. 1550 of 2008, the Block Development Officer reiterated his finding on 28.2.2009 in so far as the petitioner is concerned. The Tribunal created by statutory notification dated 25.8.2008 is a successor body of the earlier statutory authority under Rule 18 and has no jurisdiction to reopen matters decided by the earlier statutory authority. Without prejudice to the same it is submitted that if the appeal which challenged the appointment of the petitioner was itself dismissed, the Tribunal possessed no suo motu power to decide with regard to the appointment of the petitioner in absence of any lis surviving with regard to the same under Rule 2 of the notification creating the Tribunal. He relies on an order in CWJC No. 11091 of 2012.
Counsel for the State submits that even if the Tribunal possessed no jurisdiction to reexamine matters decided earlier nothing prevents the authorities from examining issues with regard to the petitioner to their satisfaction.
The notification creating the Tribunal dated 25.8.2008 in Clause (2) vests jurisdiction in it to decide appeals filed before it. The filing of such an appeal could obviously relate to denial of appointment to one and/or simultaneous challenge to the appointment of others. If the challenge was to the appointment of another coupled with denial of appointment to the applicant, if the substantive challenge for denial of appointment failed, there remained no lis before the Tribunal to decide on the validity of the appointment which may have been challenged. The statutory notification
Patna High Court CWJC No.12872 of 2012 (2) dt.31-07-2012
3
vests no suo motu power in the Tribunal to pass appropriate orders with regard to matters which may be brought to its attention during hearing of an appeal much less if the appeal is being dismissed.
Appeal No. 464 of 2009 challenging the appointment of the petitioner having been substantially dismissed the Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to examine the appointment of the petitioner much less direct his termination. The impugned order in so far as it sets aside the appointment of the petitioner in Appeal No. 464 of 2009 is quashed. If the termination has been held to be bad, reinstatement follows.
The writ application is allowed.
(Navin Sinha, J)
Snkumar/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a Tribunal created under a statutory notification has suo motu power to terminate an appellant's appointment when the primary challenge to that appointment in the same appeal was dismissed?
Whether the Tribunal possessed jurisdiction to reopen and decide matters already decided by an earlier statutory authority?
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Satyendra Kumar
The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary Government Of Bihar
The District Magistrate, Kishanganj
The District Programme Officer, Kishanganj
The Block Development Officer Cum Appellate Officer Panchayat (Primary Teacher Niyojan), Terahgachh
The Block Education Extension Officer, Kishanganj
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
