Allowed

Anant Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC11 Dec 2012CWJC/13230/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a writ petition challenging an order rejecting an appeal against a teacher's appointment. The Court remanded the matter to the Tribunal for a fresh inquiry, setting aside the impugned order. It directed the court to examine factual issues regarding respondent no. 7's participation in counselling and the exclusion based on a 2007 inquiry report, requiring production of

What did the court decide?

Set aside order dated 08.06.2012 and remanded to the Tribunal for fresh inquiry within two months, directing production of selection records.

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

¶1

Patna High Court CWJC No.13230 of 2012 (4) dt.11-12-2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13230 of 2012

¶4

====================================================== 1. Anant Prasad Son Of Late Diwakar Jha Resident Of Village + Post - Musapur, Police Station - Sarairanjan, District - Samastipur
.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Superintendent Of Education, Samastipur 3. Block Education Extension Officer, Samastipur 4. Panchayat Shikshak Selection Committee Through Mukhiya, Musapur Gram Panchayat, Samastipur 5. Mukhiya, Musapur Gram Panchayat, Samastipur 6. Panchayat Sewak, Musapur Gram Panchayat, Samastipur 7. Bipin Kumar Son Of Not Known, Presently Posted As Assistant Teacher In Rajkiya Prathmik Vidyalay, Musapur Sarairanjan, Samastipur
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Baidya Nath Thakur Mr. Shankar Kr. Thakur For the State : Mr. Partha Sarthy, SC-10 For Respondent no.7 : Mr. Udey Bhanu Rai ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER
4 11-12-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and
respondent no. 7.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated
08.06.2012 passed by the District Teachers Appointment
Appellate Authority, Samastipur, in Appeal Case No. 1624 of
2012. It rejects the Appeal of the petitioner challenging
appointment of respondent no. 7.
The Court is not satisfied with the submission on behalf of the petitioner that respondent no. 7 was not an applicant
in the Physically Handicapped General Category. But, that issue is
not very relevant now, in view of the discussion hereinafter as

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.13230 of 2012 (4) dt.11-12-2012

¶6

¶7

certain issues of facts essential for adjudication have not engaged the attention of the Tribunal properly.

¶8

Counselling was held on 12.02.2007. Certain errors were found due to over writings etc. Fresh counselling was held on 24.02.2007. In between the petitioner and respondent no. 7 are stated to have filed objections. Respondent no. 7 admittedly has higher marks than the petitioner. If respondent no. 7 had participated in the counselling on 12.02.2007 as was contended on his behalf and held by the Tribunal and he had filed objections on 12.08.2007, there is no reason why his case was not considered by the Three Man Committee headed by the Block Development Officer in their report dated 19.09.2007. This report was not challenged by respondent no. 7. The order having been signed by the Block Development Officer, the competent statutory authority under Rule 18 cannot be wished away in the manner done by the Tribunal only because it may have contained the signature of two others functionaries also. The very edifice for the conclusion of the Tribunal by rejecting the inquiry report dated 19.09.2007 therefore collapses.

¶9

It remains a question of fact that if the respondent no. 7 had actually participated in the counselling on 12.02.2007 and had filed objections why no contentions were urged on behalf of respondent no. 7 before the Tribunal and challenge laid out to

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.13230 of 2012 (4) dt.11-12-2012

¶11

¶12

the report dated 19.09.2007 to the extent that it excluded him.

¶13

The submission of a subsequent report on 02.08.2008 by the Block Development Officer, does not meet the approval of the Court. There cannot be repeated inquiry on the same issue till a report to the satisfaction of the concerned is submitted.

¶14

The order dated 08.06.2012 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal which shall examine all issues of fact afresh in accordance with law including the vigilance report referred to in its order and decide the matter afresh by a fresh reasoned and speaking order within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. It shall be the responsibility of all concerned in possession of any selection records including the vigilance record to produce the same before the Tribunal within one week of its calling for the same. Any failure to do so shall be treated as flouting the order of the Court inviting proceedings in the contempt jurisdiction.

¶15

The application is allowed.

¶16

(Navin Sinha, J.)

¶17

Md. Ibrarul/-

Anant Prasad v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Anant Prasad 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

Kusheshwar Pandit Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Subhash Chandra Rai and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bineshwar Nath Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md.akram and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Devendra Prasad and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rameshwar Prasad Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.