The High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the order of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority. The Court held that the writ was filed belatedly, after the end of the recruitment phase, and that empanelment does not create a right to appointment.
The writ application was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18190 of 2013
======================================================
Versus
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ravindra Nath Dubey, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Manoj Kumar, AC to GA-VI
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
Having regard to the prayer of the petitioners in this writ application assailing the order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, West Champaran (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Case No. 96 of 2009 / 511 of 2010, this Court must come to the conclusion that the order passed on 26.9.2011 cannot be assailed by the petitioners after a period of two years specially when in the meantime, the Government has already closed the appointment of the 2nd phase of Panchayat Teacher in the month of December, 2010.
The submission of the learned counsel for the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18190 of 2013 (2) dt.21-10-2013
2
petitioners that the petitioner had ranked at serial no.1 of the panel and yet was not appointed and the vacancy still continues to be their will at best make their cases of one being of the empanelled candidate seeking their appointment to an advertised post. The law in this regard, however, is well settled by the Apex Court in the case of Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India reported in 1991(3)SCC 47 that on the basis of mere empanelled, no indefeasible right is created in any person for also being appointed. The fact, therefore, remains that no one having lesser marks than the petitioner has been appointed and today when the entire appointment of the 2nd phase has already been closed w.e.f. 31.12.2010, no direction can now be issued in this belated writ application which, as noted above, has been filed after more than two years of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal.
That being so, this writ application must fail and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Nothing said in this order, however, will come in the way of the petitioners in competing with other eligible candidates as and when the post, in question, is advertised and process of selection is undertaken in the 3rd phase of appointment.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)
Rishi/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a writ application assailing the order of the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority can be permitted after a lapse of two years when the recruitment phase has closed.
Whether an empanelled candidate acquires an indefeasible right to appointment based merely on the panel listing.
Whether the Court can issue a direction for appointment when the entire recruitment process for the relevant phase has been concluded.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶19
Shankaran Dash Vs. Union of India
Hazrat Ali
Deveni Kumari
State Of Bihar
District Education Officer, West Champaran
Mihir Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
