Dismissed

Sarita Kumari and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC28 Oct 2013CWJC/19157/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging a District Tribunal order regarding teachers' employment. The Court held that petitioners failed to substantiate their claim that the original complaint did not implicate them, and affirmed the Tribunal's broad inquiry into a vitiated selection process.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; earlier interim order vacated.

Sarita Kumari and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19157 of 2012

¶3

====================================================== 1. Sarita Kumari W/O Ashok Kumar Prakhand Teacher, Olapur Gangaur Block And District- Khagaria 2. Anuradha Rani W/O Surendra Kumar Panchayat Teacher, Primary School, Olapur Musahari Block And District- Khagaria .... .... Petitioners Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Khagaria 4. The District Superintendent Of Education, Khagaria 5. The Block Education Area Officer, Khagaria Block, Khagaria 6. The Member District Education Employment Appellate Authority, Khagaria 7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat, Olapur, Gangaur, Khagaria 8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Olapur Gangaur, DistrictKhagaria 9. Kumari Lalmuni W/O Shri Bibhuti Kumar Singh R/O Village- Sanhauli, P.S. & Distt.- Khagaria .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr.Adv. Mr. Mukesh Kumar Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Shekhar Pd. Sinha, AC to GP17 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 7 28-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Assailing the impugned order dated 13.8.2012 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal Khagaria in Case No. 1/2012 Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners, has primarily concentrated on three aspects, namely, (i) the complaint of respondent no.9 first of all was not as against the two petitioners rather it was only against two persons, namely, Shushma Dayal and Charanjeet Kumar Singh. (ii) The Tribunal when had made the petitioners party to

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.19157 of 2012 (7) dt.28-01-2013

¶5

¶6

the case filed by respondent no.9 and had issued notice to them on 24.2.2012 it had not taken into account that the petitioners had already been appointed some five years back on 9.5.2007 and therefore, any enquiry into the appointment of the petitioners was itself beyond the reasonable period of time, especially when respondent no.9 had also not assailed either the entire selection or appointment of the petitioners before the earlier prescribed authority, namely, Block Development Officer, which was replaced by the Tribunal in the year 2008. (iii) The Tribunal while passing the impugned order had also ignored the specific directions given by this Court in the earlier order dated 1.12.2011 in C.W.J.C.No. 14622/2009, wherein the Tribunal was directed to consider the case of respondent no.9 who was the writ petitioner therein vis-à-vis Shushma Dayal and Charanjeet Kumar Singh only.

¶7

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the Tribunal has gone into the entire selection, inasmuch as the issue raised by respondent no.9 had made the Tribunal believe that the enquiry into the appointment of Shushma Dayal and Charanjeet Kumar Singh could not have been made in isolation and therefore, if the Tribunal had issued notice to all the persons appointed in the same process of selection and

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.19157 of 2012 (7) dt.28-01-2013

¶9

¶10

appointment it had not committed any error. He has further submitted that as with regard to nature of complaint of respondent no.9 this Court having already noticed the apparent infirmity in the selection process had remitted the matter back on 1.12.2011 and therefore, in view of the earlier writ petition filed by respondent no.9 which again was directed against an earlier order of the Tribunal the question of delay would be of no consequence. He has also submitted that the issue of prejudice as raised by the petitioners with regard to there being no specific complaint against the petitioners will be of no consequence if the Tribunal has gone into the entire process of selection and has found the same to be wholly vitiated.

¶11

In the considered opinion of this Court when the Tribunal had before it entire canopy as a result of the order of open remand passed by this Court on 1.12.2011 in C.W.J.C.No. 14622/2009 filed by respondent no.9 of this case, and it had found necessity of hearing the petitioners as also others its reasoning in paragraph no.15 of the impugned order relating to issuance of notice to the petitioners and others cannot be faulted either on fact or in law. The Tribunal in fact had acted more fairly by allowing the petitioners to present their case. Secondly from the notice given to the petitioners it would be absolutely clear that they were

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.19157 of 2012 (7) dt.28-01-2013

¶13

¶14

specifically informed that the allegations relating to irregularity in their appointment was reported to the Tribunal in the complaint filed by respondent no.9. The petitioners, therefore, were well aware that their selection and appointment was also under question. The petitioners in response to the aforesaid show cause notice had also appeared before the Tribunal and has filed their defence and therefore, today they cannot question the impugned order of the Tribunal on the ground that the allegation of Kumari Lalmuni, respondent no.9 of this application, was not specifically directed against them but only against the two others, namely, Shushma Dayal and Charanjeet Kumar Singh.

¶15

At this stage this Court also must note that when this issue was raised by the petitioners before this Court that respondent no.9 of this case was made no grievance against the petitioners in her complaint petition, the onus was on them to prove this aspect by producing copy of the complaint but the same has been successfully and deliberately withheld by them. The petitioners having failed to produce copy thereof while assailing the foresaid finding of the Tribunal on this score cannot be allowed to raise this issue. In that view of the matter, when this Court would examine the impugned order of the Tribunal which runs into 37 pages, it would find that the Tribunal had made its

¶16

Patna High Court CWJC No.19157 of 2012 (7) dt.28-01-2013

¶17

¶18

efforts in true spirit to unravel the entire illegalities committed in the selection process. It is true that the grievance of respondent no.9 was with regard to her being left out and to that extent she was entitled for only one post but then in course of such enquiry into the appointment in which respondent no.9 was not appointed and someone below her merit was appointed, the Tribunal could find out that the entire process of selection was vitiated and that cannot be faulted either on fact or in law.

¶19

From the reading of the order of the Tribunal it becomes clear that a detailed analysis was made in each and every category of appointment both trained and untrained and for respective categories of general and reserved seats and in respect of all of them it was found that the merit of the candidates as a whole was given a goby. Such finding of the Tribunal, therefore, would hardly require any interference, especially when it has not been selective either in discussing them or arriving at ultimate result of cancelling the entire appointment.

¶20

As with regard to alleged violation of the order of this Court dated 1.12.2011 it would be found that this Court had noted a similar argument of Mr. Singh, who then was appearing for respondent no.10, Charanjeet Kumar Singh, but his such submission was however not accepted for more than one reason

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.19157 of 2012 (7) dt.28-01-2013

¶22

¶23

and therefore, when this Court had remitted the matter back after quashing the earlier order of the Tribunal for deciding the complaint of the petitioners afresh strictly in accordance with law after affording opportunity to Shushma Dayal and Charanjeet Kumar Singh, it had not refrained the Tribunal to look into the aspects raised in the complaint. As noted above, the copy of the complaint has been withheld by the petitioners themselves and therefore, this Court is not going to accept that either the Tribunal had exceeded its jurisdiction in looking into the appointment of the petitioners or that respondent no.9 had not raised any issue with regard to selection and appointment of the petitioners.

¶24

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

¶25

The interim order passed earlier on 2.5.2013 is also accordingly vacated.

¶26

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶27

surendra/-

Sarita Kumari and Anr. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sarita Kumari and Anr. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Jitendra Kumar and Anr. Vs Kameshwar Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit University and Ors.

Dr. Seema Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Veer Prakash Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Uttam Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sanjay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Smt. Meera Verma Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.