Partly allowed

Parmila Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC30 Jul 2012CWJC/12914/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a PIL concerning teacher appointment, the High Court held that the statutory Tribunal's directions to produce original records were mandatory. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order for failing to examine said records, set them afresh under state supervision, and offered specific timelines for compliance and the fresh hearing.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order of Tribunal set aside; matter remanded for fresh hearing after production of original records within 48 hours via District Magistrate.

Parmila Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12914 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Parmila Kumari Wife Of Chakradhar Kumar Resident Of Village - Mansapur, P.O.- Karjain, P.S. Karjain, District - Supaul

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Secretary, Department Of Human Resources Development, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Teacher Selection Appellate Tribunal, Supaul, Through Its Secretary, At + P.O.+ District - Supaul

¶5

The District Education Officer, Supaul, At + P.O. + District - Supaul 4. The District Superintendent Of Education Officer, Supaul, At + Post + District - Supaul

¶6

The Block Development Officer, Raghopur At + Post + District - Supaul 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Parmanandpur, Post Office - Gospur, P.S. Karjain, District - Supaul Null Null 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Parmanandpur, Post Office - Gospur, P.S. Karjain, District - Supaul 8. Premlata Kumari Wife Of Arbind Kumar Das At + Post - Karjain, P.S. Karjain, District - Supaul

¶7

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Parmeshwar Mehta For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sudhir Kumar, A.C. to Aag2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶8

2 30-07-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶9

Learned Counsel for the petitioner prays for and is permitted to implead the District Magistrate, Supaul, as party respondent during course of the day.

¶10

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 24.9.2011 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal at Supaul in Appeal No. 52 of 2010. It rejects the appeal.

¶11

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Tribunal has wrongly held that the petitioner was filing repeated applications for the same relief. Appeal Nos. 6 of 2011 and 54 of 2011 were filed for claims in respect of Hulash Gram Panchayat. Appeal No. 53 of 2010 was filed in

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.12914 of 2012 (2) dt.30-07-2012

¶13

¶14

respect of Sadanandpur Gram Panchayat. The Tribunal has failed to appropriately notice the distinction and has been swayed by an irrelevant consideration vitiating the decision. It is next submitted that on the assertion of the petitioner that she was wrongly denied counseling, the Tribunal called for the original records. Despite more than one and repeated directions of the Tribunal , followed by the directions of the Sub Divisional Officer and the District Education Officer, the original records were still not produced by the Panchayat Sachiv and the Mukhiya. Instead of taking steps for ensuring compliance of its order the Tribunal adopted a peculiar approach requiring the petitioner to obtain information in support of the allegation for irregularities under the Right to Information Act. Naturally the nature of information furnished under the R.T.I. Act was also restricted. The Tribunal has then arrived at the finding that the petitioner had failed to prove her case. The order is fit to be set aside and the matter may be remanded.

¶15

Counsel for the State submits that it is unfortunate that directions of the Tribunal calling for the original records were not complied with by the Panchayat Sachiv. He prays for time to seek instruction.

¶16

The Tribunal is the creation of a statutory order vested with power to decide a lis. The powers and duty entrusted to the Tribunal is but a part of the larger system for dispensation of justice. The purpose for creation of the Tribunal was to make access to justice cheap, efficacious and expeditious. It would also reduce the burden of the Court. If a statutory Tribunal passes an order, those to whom it is addressed are required to comply with it. Merely because there may be no penal provision contained in the notification creating the Tribunal, no one can treat the direction of the statutory Tribunal as directory. If orders and directions of the Tribunal are to be treated so casually by those required to comply with it, the entire edifice

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.12914 of 2012 (2) dt.30-07-2012

¶18

¶19

of the rule of law shall crumble leading to rule of men.

¶20

The Tribunal being the first Court of facts is required to call for the original records and rightly did so. The Panchayat Sachiv was under a compulsion under the law to produce the same. The Sub Divisional Officer and the District Education Officer do not appear to have taken adequate steps to ensure that the Panchayat Sachiv made the original records available.

¶21

Once the Tribunal had called for the original records, the matter could not have been decided by the Tribunal without examining the same. To do so can only be at the risk of the decision being vitiated on the ground for failure to consider relevant materials. The exasperation of the Tribunal is understandable but not a substitute for exercise of power in accordance with law. The failure of the Tribunal to decide the lis after examining the original records, already called for, is not an error in exercise of jurisdiction but failure to exercise jurisdiction. The order dated 24.9.2011 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for fresh hearing.

¶22

Counsel for the State does not dispute the position in law that is the duty of the State by exercising its power in accordance with law to ensure that whosoever is in possession of the original records with regard to the selection produces it before the Tribunal and if he failed to do so it is the duty of the State to ensure that it is so produced by exercise of state powers in accordance with law.

¶23

Counsel for the State suggested that the direction may be given to the District Magistrate to ensure that the original records are produced before the Tribunal in the manner discussed. Extra ordinary situations calls for extra ordinary remedies.

¶24

Let the original records be made available to the Tribunal within 48 hours from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.12914 of 2012 (2) dt.30-07-2012

¶26

¶27

before the District Magistrate, Supaul. Let the Tribunal then hear the matter afresh and after examining the original records pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt of the original record.

¶28

The writ application stands disposed.

¶29

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶30

Snkumar/-

Parmila Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parmila Kumari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Chhotu Poddar @ Kamal Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar

Prof.Khalid Mirza Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Anand Narain Roy Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sri Deo Narayan Upadhaya Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Shyam Sunder Prasad and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Prem Prakash Gupta Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.