Dismissed

Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC31 Jul 2012CWJC/12946/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a service dispute regarding a teaching position in Siwan, the High Court dismissed the petitioner's writ. The petitioner, originally in an appointment panel, failed to object to a subsequent appointee within the statutory period prescribed by the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers Rules. The court held that the subsequent resignation created a fresh vacancy requiring new counseling, and the petit

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed with no direction in the favor of the petitioner.

Ashok Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12946 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Ashok Kumar Son Of Sri Sudarshan Prasad Resident Of Village - Nai Basti Mahadeva, P.S. Siwan, P.S. Siwan Mufassil, District - Siwan .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Siwan 3. The District Education Officer, Siwan 4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan 5. The Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan Null Null 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan 7. The Mukhiya, Saghar Sultanpur (South), Gram Panchayat Raj, Block - Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Saghar Sultanpur (South), Gram Panchayat Raj, Block - Bhagwanpur Hat, District - Siwan 9. Sanjay Kumar Pandey Son Of Sri Jairam Pandey Resident Of Village Durgauli, Post - Bansohi, P.S. Mashrakh, District - Saran , Chapra .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ansul For the Respondent/s : Mr. Tej Bahadur Singh Aag7 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 31-07-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 4.7.2012 passed by District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Siwan in Appeal No. 802 of 2011 preferred by Respondent no. 9. The Tribunal has set aside the termination of Respondent no. 9. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in the final panel prepared for appointment dated 30.11.2006 (as per oral instruction) four persons including the petitioner were named. Respondent no. 9 was not one of them. The person at serial 1 and 2 did not join. The person at serial 3 was appointed on 26.12.2006 (as per oral instruction). The petitioner at serial 4 during life of the panel questioned the former’s appointment on the

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.12946 of 2012 (2) dt.31-07-2012

¶4

¶5

ground that his qualifications were fake by filing an application before the District Magistrate on 22.11.2007 which was forwarded to the Block Development Officer on 23.11.2007. The person at serial 3 of the panel resigned on 20.10.2007. The petitioner was the only other candidate available in the panel and having raised a challenge during the life of the panel, the respondent were legitimately required to offer him the appointment. Contrary to the same fresh counseling was held leading to the appointment of Respondent no. 9 on 30.11.2007. The appointment of Respondent no. 9 was terminated on 26.3.2008 but which was set aside by this Court in CWJC No. 9428 of 2008 on 29.8.2004 and the matter referred to the Tribunal leading to the impugned order. The petitioner was not a party in CWJC No. 9428 of 2008. After the termination of Respondent no. 9 the petitioner had been appointed and joined on 5.4.2008. Acknowledging that the petitioner had not participated in the fresh counseling during which Respondent no. 9 was appointed it was submitted that the counseling itself was not held in accordance with law.

¶6

Counsel for the State opposes the application submitting that the very edifice of the claim of the petitioner to be considered after resignation of the person at serial 3 on a complaint stated to have been filed before the Block Development Officer during life of the panel gets knocked out by the order in CWJC No. 9428 of 2008 quashing the order of the Block Development Officer and restraining the Tribunal from examining the contents of the same.

¶7

If only two contestants remained from the panel and the person above the petitioner resigned for any reason during life of the panel, the petitioner being the next available candidate on a claim having raised objection during life of the panel may have had a cause of action if he had raised his objection before the Block Development Officer within 30 days of

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.12946 of 2012 (2) dt.31-07-2012

¶9

¶10

the appointment of the person at serial 3, under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. He filed his application not before the statutory authority but before the District Magistrate who had no jurisdiction in the matter. Even if it was forwarded to the statutory authority it was so done much beyond the period of 30 days from the date of appointment as late as 23.11.2007. The right that may have flowed to the petitioner by reason of being the next available candidate in the panel was qualified and restricted by Rule 18. Any interpretation on the claim of the petitioner only if having been raised during life of the panel would completely negate the statutory provisions of Rule 18 and such an interpretation has to be avoided.

¶11

If the petitioner did not raise any objection to the appointment of Respondent no. 3 during the period stipulated and the person appointed subsequently resigned, it did not revive the exhausted vacancy but created a fresh vacancy which rightly was made amenable by the respondents to fresh counseling in which the petitioner did not participate, a question of fact as held by the Tribunal leading to appointment of Respondent no. 9.

¶12

The Court finds no reason to interfere with the order of the Tribunal.

¶13

The writ application is dismissed.

¶14

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶15

Snkumar/-

Ashok Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

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

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

Parmila Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Ajay Kumar Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Parvin Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Satyendra Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.