Remanded

Manoj Paswan v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Jul 2012CWJC/3348/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court, in a writ petition challenging a teacher's appointment rejection, observed that the Tribunal's finding of fact regarding counseling participation must be final. However, the Court directed the District Education Programme Officer to examine a specific allegation of Respondent no. 7 possessing dual certificates. The writ application was disposed by remitting this specific issu

What did the court decide?

Remitted the issue of Respondent no. 7's possession of two Matriculation certificates to Respondent no. 2 for final decision within two months after hearing.

Manoj Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3348 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Manoj Paswan Son Of Late Tarni Paswan Resident Of Village-Daulatpur, P.O.-Khanpur Mali, P.S. Bath, District-Bhagalpur .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Education Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Education Programme Officer, Bhagalpur 3. The Block Education Officer, Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur 4. The Chairman, Selection Committee, Panchayat Teacher Employment Unit, Gram Panchayat Khanpur Block, Sultanganj, District-Bhagalpur 5. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Khanpur Block, Sultanganj, Dist.Bhagalpur 6. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Khanpur Block, Dist.-Bhagalpur 7. Sumit Kumar @ Dinesh Das S/O Giribar Narayan Das Resident Of Village-Daulatpur, P.O.-Khanpur Mal, P.S. Bath, Dist.-Bhagalpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha with Mr. Sadanand Paswan For the Respondent/s : Mr. Namrta Mishra Gp17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶3

3 05-07-2012 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the State.

¶4

The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 12.10.2011 passed in Appeal No. 12 of 2011 by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal at Bhagalpur. It rejects his appeal to be considered for appointment on the ground that a candidate with lesser marks had been appointed holding that the petitioner had failed to participate in the counseling.

¶5

Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that due publication of the date for counseling was not done. Due to lack of proper intimation he was prevented from participating in the counseling. Respondent no. 7 is the brother of the Mukhiya and his appointment has been manipulated. The petitioner has higher marks than Respondent no. 7.

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.3348 of 2012 (4) dt.05-07-2012

¶7

¶8

Counsel for the State submits that the Tribunal has arrived at a finding of fact that the petitioner did not participate in the counseling. The Writ Court in judicial review may not interfere with such finding of fact as first Court. The findings of fact arrived by the Tribunal may be given finality.

¶9

This Court under Article 226 does not sit as an appellate court over the orders of the Tribunal. The jurisdiction for judicial review shall first be confined to errors in the decision making process. No such material has been urged. The other grounds on which the Court may interfere in judicial review are perversity of finding, failure to take into consideration relevant materials, taking into consideration irrelevant materials, violation of principles of natural justice and a conclusion which no reasonable person would have arrived at from the materials on record. Such also does not appear to be the case presently.

¶10

While exercising powers of judicial review the Court shall not scrutinise the orders of the Tribunal on grounds not urged before it so as to base the order on basis of materials on which the Tribunal may have had no occasion to apply its mind.

¶11

The application of the petitioner before the Tribunal dated 6.9.2011 is on record. The petitioner had only contended that Respondent no. 7 was possessed of two Matriculation certificates. They were raising a disputed fact about his correct age. According to one of them he was over age for appointment. No ground with regard to lack of adequate publication for date of counseling was raised by him. Once the Tribunal has arrived at the finding of fact that counseling was in fact held when the petitioner did not participate with no challenge led out by the petitioner the Court finds it difficult to adjudicate upon the same and the finding by the Tribunal has to be given finality. But the Court does find substance in the

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.3348 of 2012 (4) dt.05-07-2012

¶13

¶14

second contention of the petitioner that even if the first ground is not sustainable and the petitioner has raised a specific ground that Respondent no. 7 was possessed of two certificates one of them rendering him ineligible it was a matter which merits consideration irrespective of the fact whether the petitioner was eligible or not.

¶15

Counsel for the State submits that if the petitioner was not participant in the counseling he has no locus to challenge the appointment of Respondent no. 7.

¶16

The Court does not concur with the submissions made on behalf of the State. The ineligibility of the petitioner is one aspect of the matter, the legality of the appointment of Respondent no. 7 is another aspect of the matter. If questions have in fact been raised before the Tribunal with regard to his ineligibility on grounds of age, the Tribunal was required to decide it. Any appointment made contrary to the law cannot seek sanctification on the ground that the petitioner who challenges it had no locus. The two are entirely different issues.

¶17

Let Respondent no. 2 examine the issue of the dual certificates of Respondent no. 7 and take a final decision in accordance with law preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order after hearing the concerned.

¶18

The order cannot be construed as a confirmation of the allegation. The direction is based on the issue of it having been left undecided by the Tribunal.

¶19

The writ application stands disposed.

¶20

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶21

Snkumar/-

Manoj Paswan v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Manoj Paswan 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

Jatadhar Jha Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rintu Kumari @ Rintu Devi Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.sachindra Kumar Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shushila Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Smt.Arti Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Susmita Choudhary Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.