Dismissed

Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Oct 2013CWJC/18281/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna HC dismissed a writ petition challenging a Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal order. The petitioner, a reserved category teacher, argued the Tribunal erred in appointing a higher-ranking general category candidate. The Court held that the reservation issue was not raised before the Tribunal and could not be grounds for interference under Article 226. It also ruled past salary directi

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed as it was considered wholly misconceived since the key issues were not raised before the Tribunal.

Mukesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18281 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Mukesh Kumar .... .... Petitioner/s Versus The State Of Bihar & Ors .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Abhay Shankar Jha ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 23-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶3

Assailing the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as the Tribunal) Mr. Pramod Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has basically concentrated on the aspect that the Tribunal has committed a gross error in allowing the complaint of respondent no. 12 by holding that he was more eligible to be appointed on the post held by the petitioner because respondent no. 12 had higher marks. Mr. Mishra in this context has submitted that the main issue however was not gone into by the Tribunal that irrespective of higher marks of the respondent no. 12, he could not have claimed the post on which the petitioner was appointed, inasmuch as, respondent no. 12 belonged to general category whereas the petitioner belongs to the

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.18281 of 2013 (2) dt.23-10-2013

¶5

¶6

reserved category (backward category).

¶7

He has further submitted that in fact the appointment of the petitioner was also assailed earlier by some other persons but the Tribunal did not find any merit in them and surprisingly the complaint of respondent no. 12 on same set of facts was allowed by the impugned order. He has also contended that the Tribunal having kept the matter pending for a period of nearly three years ought to have not decided the complaint in favour of respondent no. 12 because the Tribunals are under obligation to decide the matter within 90 days only. While summing up he has also submitted that as a matter of fact when the appointment of the petitioner having received approval of this Court in an earlier order in the form of a direction issued for his payment of salary in the writ petition filed by him for issuance of a direction to the authorities for making payment of his salary, no different view could have been taken and thus the impugned order is fit to be set aside on this ground alone.

¶8

In the considered opinion of this Court, all the aforementioned pleas have to be noted for its being rejected.

¶9

First of all the most important plea raised by Mr. Mishra as with regard to violation of norms of reservation

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.18281 of 2013 (2) dt.23-10-2013

¶11

¶12

has to be gone into in the backdrop of the findings recorded by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has however nowhere gone into this aspect, inasmuch as, on the basis of the pleadings and the issues evolving therein, the Tribunal has recorded its finding in the following manner:-

¶13

^^nksuksa i{kksa dks lquus ,oa vfHkys[k ds voyksdu ls eSa ikrk gwW fd vkosnd jktho dqekj dk uke vkosnu iath ua0&1 ds dzekad 220 ij vafdr gS ftlesa vkosnd dk b.VjehfM,V eas izkIrkad dk 62-66 rFkk vuqHko izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij 20 vad dk vf/kHkkj izkIr gS bl izdkj vkosnd dk dqy es/kkad 82-66 vafdr gSA fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk vyx ls dkxt ij rS;kj fd, x;s vafre es/kk lwph esa vkosnd dk uke] dzekad 809 ij vafdr gS ftlesa vkosnd ds vuqHko izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij izkIr 20 vad vf/kHkkj dks ugha tksM+k x;k gS rFkk vkosnd dk dqy es/kkad dsoy 62-66 vafdr gSa vkosnd }kjk lqpuk ds vf/kdkj ds rgr izkIr lwpuk ds vUrxZr vius vkosnu i= rFkk lkFk esa fn, x;s izek.k i=k s a dh Nk;k izfr izkIr fd;k gSa ftlesa vkosnd dk vuqHko izek.k i= dh Nk;k izfr vkosnu ds lkFk layXu gSa blls Li"V gksrk gS fd vkosn vkosnu djrs le; gh vius vuqHko izek.k i= dks vkonsu ds lkFk layXu fd;k Fkk rFkk vkosnu ds vkosnu dks iathcn~/k djrs le; mDr vuqHko izek.k i= dks Hkh vafdr dj 20 vad vf?kHkkj tksM+dj dqy es/kkad 82-66 vafdr fd;k x;k ijUrq vafre es/kk lwph rS;kj djrs le; vkosnd ds 20 vad vf/kHkkj dks ughas tksMk x;k rFkk ,slk djus dk dksbZ Li"V dkj./k Hkh vafdr ugha fd;k x;k gSA vkosnd us vius vkosnu esa dgk gS fd fu;kstu bsdkbZ }kjk vafre es/kk lwph dk fuekZ.k fd;k x;k ijUrq mDr es/kk lwph dk izdk'ku ugha djus ds dkj.k vkosnd dk es/kk lwph esa vius uke vafdr ugha gkus dh tkudkjh ugha fey ldhA fu;kstu bsdkbZ }kjk iwNus ij crk;k x;k fd dV vkWQ ekdZ 84% gSa vkosnd }kjk fu;kstu bsdkbZ ls lwpuk ds vf/kdkj ds rgr tc

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.18281 of 2013 (2) dt.23-10-2013

¶15

¶16

lwpuk ekaxh x;h rc fu;kstu bsdkbZ rFkk iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh iqijh nkuksa us lwpuk nsus ls bUdkj dj fn,A iqu% fnukad 12-5-2009 dks vkosnd }kjk jkT; lwpuk vk;ksx esa vihy djus ij ia;k;r lfpo xzke iapk;r jkt HkhBk /keZiqj ,oa iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh iqijh dks lwpuk miyC/k djksu dk vkns'k gqvk rc vkosnu dks lwpuk nh x;hA ;g rF; Li"V :i ls lkfcr djrk gS fd vkosnu dk uke tku cq>dj vafre es/kk lqph esa fu;kstu bsdkbZ }kjk vafdr ugha fd;k x;k rFkk vafre es/kk lwph dk izdk'ku Hkh ugha fd;k x;kA vafre es/kk lwph dk fuekZ.k ,oa es/kk lwph dk izdk'ku nksuksa fHkUu gSa ;gka vafre es/kk lwph izLrqr dh x;h gS ftlls es/kk lwph ds izdkf'kr gksus dk rF; lkfcr ugha gksrk gSA

¶17

foi{kh eqds'k dqekj dk vkonsd ds vkosnu ij izR;qRrj gS fd vkosnd viuk lEiw.kZ vkosnu izLrqr fd;k Fkk bl dkj.k vkosnd fu;kstu bdkbZ ij i{kikr ,oa vU; rF;ghu vkjksi yxk;k gSA foi{kh dk ;g Hkh dFku gS fd blh rjg dk vkjksi okn la[;k &154@2010] 188@2010] 296@2010] 01@2011 rFkk 05@2012 esa yk;k x;k Fk ftls lquokbZ ds ckn Hkh vkosnu izkf/kdkj }kjk [kkfjt dj fn, x;sA bl laca/k esa foi{kh }kjk mijksDr oknksa esa ikfjr vkns'k dh Nk;k izfr izLrqr fd;k gS ftlls Li"V gksrk gS fd okn la[;k&154@2010 dh vkosfndk okn izLrqr djus ds okn dHkh mifLFkr ugha gqbZ rFkk okn la[;k 188@2010 dk vkosnd lq/kka'kq dqekj vius vkosnu ds lkFk viuk vuqHko izek.k i= ugha fn;k Fkk rFkk okn la[;k 296@2010 ds vkosnd vius vkosnu ds lkFk viuk tfr izek.k i= ugha fn;k Fkk rFkk viuk dksfV Hkh vkonsu i= esa ugha fy[kk Fkk ftlls mudk okn [kkfjt gks x;k ijUrq izLrqr okn mijksDr lHkh oknksa ls fHkUu gS vr% bls ml vk/kkj ij vLohd`r ugha fd;k tk ldrkA

¶18

vkosnd ds bl rdZ dks bUdkj ugha fd;k tk ldrk gS fd mldk dqy es/kkad 82-66% gksus ds ckotwn mldk uke vafre es/kk lwph esa tku cq>dj ugha vafdr fd;k x;k rFkk mlls de es/kkad

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.18281 of 2013 (2) dt.23-10-2013

¶20

¶21

63-33 ij foi{kh eqds'k dqekj dk fu;kstu fd;k x;kA vkosnd mijksDr fu;kstu dks vius vkosnu fnukad 28-08-2009 }kjk pqukSrh fn;k gS tcfd eqds'k dqekj ,oa ikap vU; vH;fFkZ;ksa dk fu;kstu fnukad 13-08-2010 ds }kjk fd;k x;k gSa bl izdkj Li"V gksrk gS fd mijksDr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fu;kstu ds iwoZ gh vkosnd okn nk;j dj fn;k Fkk ijUrq mlds nkos dks utj vankt djrs gq, mDr fu;kstu fd;k x;k tks lgh ugha gSA

¶22

vr% vkonsd dk vkosnu Lohd`r fd;k tkrk gS rnuqlkj foi{kh eqds'k dqekj dk fu;kstu jn~n fd;k tkrk gS rFkk muds LFkku ij vkosnd jktho dqekj dk fu;kstu fd;k tk;A**

¶23

From a bare reading of the aforesaid findings in the impugned order, it would be clear that though the petitioner had appeared before the Tribunal and contested the matter but he did not even chouse to raise this issue that the petitioner belongs to the reserved category whereas respondent no. 12 was of general category. That in fact will not be the end of the petitioner, inasmuch as, the petitioner has also enclosed his written statement filed before the Tribunal contained in Annexure-8 and in the same also not a word has been said as with regard to the petitioner even staking his claim for the reserved post and the respondent no. 12 belonging to general category.

¶24

In that view of the matter, the petitioner cannot be allowed to set up a new case before this Court while assailing the order of the Tribunal. This Court also cannot

¶25

Patna High Court CWJC No.18281 of 2013 (2) dt.23-10-2013

¶26

¶27

exercise its power under Article-226 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order of the Tribunal only on the basis of the issues which were not raised by the petitioner before the Tribunal.

¶28

As with regard to the second aspect that since a direction was given by this Court for payment of salary to the petitioner the same will also amount to approval of the service of the petitioner is again a desperate argument, inasmuch as, whatever claim came to be adjudicated by this Court was limited to the petitioner's working and his being entitled for payment of salary for the work done. This Court infact at no point of time had upheld the appointment of petitioner much less in presence of Respondent no. 12 who was/is definitely more meritorious candidate than the petitioner. In any event the respondent no. 12 was not a party in those cases filed by the petitioner and therefore, he will not be bound by such orders passed in those cases. Moreover this Court does not find any material on record to show that anyone had approached the Tribunal with specific claim like the respondent no. 12 seeking to establish that he had secured much more marks and was to be given higher place in the merit list and yet the appointment of the petitioner was

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.18281 of 2013 (2) dt.23-10-2013

¶30

¶31

made. In that view of the matter the earlier orders passed by the Tribunal in cases of others will not be binding on respondent no. 12 and therefore, the impugned order cannot be interfered with even on that score.

¶32

Coming to the last submission as with regard to Tribunal not disposing of the complaint filed by respondent no. 12 within 90 days the same is a directory provision and no mandamus can be issued by holding the impugned order passed by the Tribunal to be bad only on account of the fact that the Tribunal had failed to dispose of the complaint filed by respondent no. 12 in 90 days.

¶33

That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶34

Ranjan/- (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

Mukesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mukesh 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 Nirmal Kumar Nirmal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uday Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Hari Krishna Roy Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajendra Mahto Vs The Lalit Narayan Mithila University and Ors.

Anjila Singh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.