Disposed

Praveen Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC30 Aug 2012CWJC/14272/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court directed the Tribunal to call for video recording of counselling proceedings and examine it afresh within three months, upholding the Tribunal's inherent power to devise its own procedure to ensure substantial justice in an appointment dispute.

What did the court decide?

Directed the Tribunal to call for video recording and examine it afresh within three months after hearing all concerned.

Praveen Kumar Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14272 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Praveen Kumar Thakur Son Of Sri Raj Narayan Thakur Resident Of Village - Ramapur Maheshpur, P.S - Tajpur, District - Samastipur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 2. The Director Primary Education, Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3. Tajpur Block Teachers Appointment Unit Through Its Chairman Block Tajpur, P.S. Tajpur, District - Samastipur 4. The Executive Officer-Cum-Block Development Officer, Tajpur Block Teachers Appointment Unit, Block - Tajpur, P.S. Tajpur District 5. The Block Development Officer, Tajpur Block, P.S. - Tajpur, District - Samastipur 6. The Secretary-Cum-Block Education Extension Officer, Tajpur Block Teachers Appointment Unit, Block - Tajpur, P.S. - Tajpur, District - Samastipur 7. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Samastipur Through Its Member 8. Dhruv Kumar Son Of Late Haridwar Sharma Resident Of Morwa Raitol, P.S. - Tajpur, District - Samastipur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sushil Kumar Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Kumar Sachin Gp24 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶3

2 30-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶4

The writ petition was originally filed challenging an order dated 24.2.2012 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority at Samastipur in Appeal No. 474 of 2011. It rejected the claim to be considered for appointment holding that the petitioner did not participate in the counselling declining interference with appointment of a

¶5

Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012

¶6

2 / 3

¶7

person with lesser marks.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the order of the Tribunal refers to Videography done at the time of counselling. It was the case of the petitioner that he was present but was denied counselling. The Tribunal did not call for the video records while deciding the case earlier. The petitioner therefore filed a fresh application before the Tribunal on 30.3.2012 to call for the video recording on which notices have been issued on 2.4.2012.

¶9

If video recording was done during the stage of counselling, it was certainly relevant evidence. What shall be its relevancy with regard to the petitioner is an entirely different matter. If the respondents took the stand before the Tribunal that Videography had been done and the Tribunal noticed it, appropriately the Tribunal should have called for the same and examined it in accordance with law.

¶10

The Tribunal is the creation of a statutory order dated 25.8.2008. The manner and procedure by which a lis is to be decided is not expressly provided for in the notification. A quasi judicial Tribunal has a primary duty to dispense justice. The power is inherent in every Tribunal, especially if procedure for hearing is not laid down to devise its own procedure in the interest of justice. So long as the exercise of this inherent power does not fall foul of any settled principles of law, they must be upheld to permit the Tribunal to do

¶11

Patna High Court CWJC No.14272 of 2012 (2) dt.30-08-2012

¶12

3 / 3

¶13

substantial justice.

¶14

It shall be the duty of the Executive Officer-cumBlock Development Officer, respondent no. 4 to ensure that the video recording called for by the Tribunal is produced before it on the next date fixed reckoned from the date that the petitioner produces a copy of the present order. The Tribunal shall then proceed to examine the video recording in accordance with law and dispose off the matter afresh after hearing all concerned including any likely to be affected by its order within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶15

The writ application stands disposed.

¶16

P. Kumar/-

¶17

(Navin Sinha, J)

Praveen Kumar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Praveen Kumar Thakur 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

Lalita Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Tajmul Husain and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Subhadra Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raj Kumar Yadav and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Parmeshwar Dayal Tiwary and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.arbind Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.