Dismissed

Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Oct 2013CWJC/20404/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the cancellation of the petitioner's appointment as a Panchayat Teacher. The Tribunal found the one-day selection process illegal, but the Court held that Article 14 does not mandate invalidating a petitioner's individual appointment if others similarly appointed under the same flawed process are retained, unless a larger reform is shown n

What the court decided

AI extract

Anil Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20404 of 2012

¶3

======================================================

¶4

Anil Kumar Son Of Shambhu Yadav Resident Of Village Chhilkauri, Police Station - Alauli, District - Khagaria

¶5

.... .... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Collector Begusarai 2. The District Education Officer Begusarai

¶8

The S.D.O. Begusarai

¶9

The Block Development Officer Gadhpura, District - Begusarai

¶10

The Block Education Extension Officer Gadhpura, District - Begusarai 6. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj Kumhar Shop, P.S. Alauli, P.S. Bakhari, District - Begusarai

¶11

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kumhar Sao, P.S. Bakhari, District - Begusarai

¶12

Rajesh Kumar Son Of Late Raghunandan Mahto Resident Of Village - Sona, P.S. - Gadhpura, District - Begusarai

¶13

.... .... Respondents

¶14

====================================================== Appearance :

¶15

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Md. Anis Akhtar, AC to GA-3

¶16

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER

¶17

2 22-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following reliefs prayed in this writ application:-

¶18

"(i) For issuance of writ in the nature of mandamus for quashing of the order dated 1.9.2012 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal Begusarai in Case No. 47 of 2011 whereby and whereunder the district Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner and has further directed the respondent concerned for appoint the private respondent on the post of petitioner without considering that the District Teachers Appointment

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.20404 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶20

¶21

Appellate Tribunal has considered while cancelling the appointment of the petitioner that in fact there was illegality in the entire selection process and without making all the selected candidate as a party before the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal and without hearing to them has cancelled the appointment of the petitioner though the tribunal was of the opinion that the entire selection was vitiated.

¶22

(ii) For further direction to the respondent authorities not to disturb the petitioner in the peacefully discharging his duties as a Panchayat Teacher till the disposal of the writ application."

¶23

Mr. Surendra Kishore Thakur, learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly submitted that though the claim of selection of the petitioner and his consequential appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher in view of the findings arrived by the Tribunal in the impugned order cannot be sustained inasmuch as, the entire procedure laid down for selection and appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher was held to be not at all followed in letter and spirit as prescribed in the Rule but, then, no exception should have been made only in the case of the petitioner because if the Tribunal had come to such a conclusion that an illegal procedure was followed for making all the appointment including that of the petitioner, the burnt of displacement or removal should not have been directed to be born by the petitioner

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.20404 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶25

¶26

alone.

¶27

Attractive though the aforesaid submissions may be but, then on a close perusal of the impugned order it would be found that the Tribunal was dealing with a particular case with regard to particular post wherein the private respondent no was in fact claiming the post of the petitioner. Therefore, when the appointment of the petitioner was challenged, the Tribunal had arrived at a finding which on the face of record will go to show that the prescribed procedure as laid down in the Bihar Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rule, 2006 was not at all followed. To this extent, the following findings of the Tribunal is unexceptional either on fact or in law which reads as follows:-

¶28

^^foi{kh vfuy dqekj ds izkFkZuk ij iapk;r lfpo ls Primary Merit List, Final Merit List and Proceeding Book dh ekax dh x;h Fkh tks vfHkys[k ij gSA izkjafHkd es/kk lwfp ds Øekad 35 ij vihykFkhZ dk uke gSA ysfdu vafre es/kk lwfp esa vihykFkhZ dk uke ugha gSA fu;kstu iath (Proceeding book) dh dkjZokbZ fnukad& 27-12-10 ds izLrko la0 04 esa vafdr foUnwvksa ij xkSj fd;k tkuk vko”;d gS] ftlds vuqlkj dkmaflfyax dh frfFk] es/kk lwfp fuekZ.k ,oa izdk”ku dh frfFk] fu;kstu lfefr dh cSBd] lgefr i= ,oa fu;kstu i= fuxZr gsrq fuEu frfFk ,oa le; fu/kkZfjr dh x;h %&

¶29

01- dkmaflfyax dh frfFk 29-12-10 dks iwokZgu 10 cts ls vijkgu 4 cts rd iapk;r dk;kZy; esaA

¶30

02- es/kk lwfp dk fuekZ.k ,oa izdk”ku frfFk fnukad& 29-12-10 le; pkj cts ls ikap cts rdA

¶31

03- fu;kstu lfefr dh cSBd fnukad& 29-12-10 dks 5%10 cts ls

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.20404 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶33

¶34

5%30 cts rdA

¶35

04- lgefr i= izkIr djuk ,oa fu;kstu i= fuxZr fnukad& 2912-10 ds “kke 5%30 cts ls 6%30 cts vijkg~u rd fd;k tk;sxkA

¶36

05- fu;kstu i= fuxZr dh lwpuk iz[kaM fodkl inkf/kdkjh] x<+iqjk dks fnukad& 30-12-10 dks iwokZg~u 12 cts rd djk nh tk;xhA

¶37

fu;kstu iath esa vafdr fnukad& 27-12-10 ds izLrko la0 04 ds vuqlkj ,d gh fnu 29-12-10 ds fnu esa 10 cts ls “kke 4 cts rd igys dkmaflfyax dh frfFk fu/kkZfjr gq;h ,oa mlh fnu “kke esa pkj ls ikap cts rd es/kk lwfp dk fuekZ.k dj mldk izdk”ku fd;k x;kA iqu% mlh fnu “kke esa pkj ls ikap cts rd es/kk lwfp dk fuekZ.k dj mldk izdk”ku fd;k x;kA iqu% mlh fnu vijkg~u 5%10 ls 5%30 cts rd fu;kstu lfefr dh cSBd vk;ksftr Fkh ,oa mlh fnu “kke 5%30 cts ls 6%30 cts rd lgefr i= izkIr dj fu;kstu i= fuxZr fd;k tkuk FkkA

¶38

tc fu;kstu lfefr ds mijksDr dk;ZØe ds vuqlkj ,d gh fnu 29-12-10 dks igys dkmaflfyax yh x;h ,oa mlds ckn mlh fnu es/kk lwfp dk fuekZ.k dj mldk izdk”ku fd;k x;k rc vihykFkhZ dks vafre es/kk lwfp izdkf”kr gksus ij mlesa viuk uke ugha gksus ij ml ij vkifRr nsus dk volj gh ugha feykA mijksDr dk;ZØe ds vkyksd esa foi{kh ds vf/koDrk dk ;g dFku lgh ugha gS fd cgqr igys vafre es/kk lwfp dk izdk”ku fd;k x;k ftldh tkudkjh gksus ij Hkh vkifRr i= nsus gsrq lkr fnuksa dh fu/kkZfjr vof/k esa vihykFkhZ }kjk vkifRr i= ugha fn;k x;kA

¶39

bl izdkj vf/kd es/kk vad gksus ds ckotwn ,d gh frfFk esa vafre es/kk lwfp dk fuekZ.k dj mldk izdk”ku ls igys dkmaflfyax dk le; fu/kkZfjr dj tkucq>dj fu;kstu lfefr }kjk vihykFkhZ dk dkmaflfyax esa Hkkx ysus ls fu;kstu gsq fu/kkZfjr mez lhek dks dkj.k crkdj vafre es/kk lwfp esa “kkfey gksus ,oa dkmaflfyax esa Hkkx ysus rFkk fu;kstu i= izkIr djus ls

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.20404 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶41

¶42

oafpr fd;k x;kA

¶43

tgk¡ rd Overage crkdj vihykFkhZ dks fu;kstu ls oafpr djus laca/kh iapk;r lfpo ds izfrosnu dk iz”u gS] mlij f}rh; pj.k f”k{kd fu;kstu 2008 fu;ekoyh ij xkSj djuk vko”;d gSA vkosnd ds dFku ,oa iapk;r lfpo ds izfrosnu ds vuqlkj vihykFkhZ fiNM+k oxZ dk vH;FkhZ gSA iapk;r lfpo ds izfrosnu ds vuqlkj f”k{kd fu;kstu o’kZ 2008 esa fiNM+h tkfr ds fy, fnukad& 01-08-2008 dks fu;kstu dh mez lhek 38 o’kZ gS tcfd vkosnd dh mez fnukad& 01-08-2008 dks 38 o’kZ 7 ekg 16 fnu jgus ds dkj.k fu;kstu bdkbZ }kjk vkosnd dks vafre es/kk lwfp esa “kkfey ugha fd;k x;kA ;g ckr lgh gS d vkosnd dh tUe frfFk 15-12-1969 gS rFkk 01-08-2008 dks mldh mez 38 o’kZ 7 eghuk 16 fnu gSA ysfdu vk;q ds laca/k esa f”k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh 2008 esa Li’V dgk x;k gS fd

¶44

“ ftl o’kZ fu;kstu fd;k tk jgk gks ml o’kZ dh igyh vxLr dks mEehnokjksa dh U;wure vk;q 18 o’kZ ,oa vf/kdre vk;q 37 o’kZ gksxhA fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ ds fy, mez lhek esa nks o’kZ dh NwV nh tk;sxhA

¶45

bl izdkj fiNM+k oxZ dk vH;FkhZ gksus ds ukrs vkosnd ds ekeys esa vf/kdre mezlhek 37 o’kZ + 2 o’kZ ¼NwV dh vof/k½ = 39 o’kZ ykxw gSA vkosnd dh mez fu/kkZfjr frfFk ij 38 o’kZ 7 ekg 16 fnu gS tks 39 o’kZ ds vanj gSA vr% fu;kstu gsrq fu/kkZfjr mez lhek ikj dj tkus ds vk/kkj ij vkosnd dks vafe es/kk lwfp esa “kkfey ugha djus laca/kh iapk;r lfpo dk izfrosnu fof/klEer ugha gksus ds dkj.k mls vekU; d;k tkrk gS ” A**

¶46

vihy vkosnu] foi{kh dk dFku] iapk;r lfpo dk izfrosnu] es/kk lwfp] Proceeding book ,oa f}rh; pj.k f”k{kd fu;kstu fu;ekoyh o’kZ 2008 dk voyksdu fd;kA vihykFkhZ ,oa foi{kh ds vf/koDrk ds dFku ij fopkj fd;k dkmaflfyax esa Hkkx

¶47

Patna High Court CWJC No.20404 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶48

¶49

ugha ysus esa vkosnd dh vksj ls dksbZ pqd ugha gSA fu;kstu lfefr }kjk tkucq>dj vafre es/kk lwfp dk fuekZ.k ,oa izdk”ku ls iwoZ dkmaflfyax vk;ksftr fd;k x;k ftlesa vafre es/kk lwfp esa uke ugha gksus@vf/kdre mez lhek ikj dj tkus ds dkj.k vihykFkhZ dh dkmaflfyax ugha yh x;hA iapk;r lfpo ds izfrosnu ds vuqlkj vf/kdre mez lhek ikj dj tkus ds dkj.k vkosnd dks vafre es/kk lwfp esa “kkfey ugha fd;k x;kA bl izdkj vkosnd ds es/kk vad ¼74-88½ dh vuns[kh dj mlls fuEu es/kk vad okys vH;FkhZ vfuy dqekj ¼es/kk vad 70-22 izfr”kr½ dk fu;kstu fd;k x;k tks fof/k lEer ugha gSA

¶50

mij of.kZr rF; ,oa ifjfLFkfr esa vihykFkhZ ls fuEu es/kk vad ij fu;ksftr foi{kh vfuy dqekj ;kno] firk Jh “kaHkw ;kno dk fu;kstu fof/k fo:) ikdj mls jnn ?kksf’kr fd;k tkrk gSA iapk;r fu;kstu lfefr dks funs”k fn;k tkrk gS fd vfuy dqekj ;kno dk fu;kstu jnn gksus ls mRiUu fjfDr ij es/kk vad ds vkyksd esa vihykFkhZ dks vafre es/kk lwfp esa “kkfey dj ,oa vU; vko”;d vkSipkfjdrk iwjh dj mlds fu;kstu ds laca/k esa pkj lIrkg ds vanj vko”;d fu.kZ; ysaA vihy eatwj fd;k x;kA**

¶51

This Court, however in absence of other seven

¶52

persons who according to the learned counsel for the petitioner were also appointed with the same procedure by completing the entire selection process of one day, would not like to say anything with regard to the validity of the appointment of the rest of the seven persons but, then, if the petitioner chooses to raise this question before the Tribunal by filing his own complaint assailing the appointment of those seven persons by impleading them as

¶53

Patna High Court CWJC No.20404 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶54

¶55

parties, the Tribunal may examine their cases as well and pass an appropriate order after giving notice and opportunity of hearing to all those seven persons.

¶56

Article 14 of the Constitution of India, however, cannot be applied in a negative manner and simply because seven of the persons illegally appointed alike the petitioner are being retained in service, the Tribunal could not have also allowed the petitioner to be retained in service specially when it was fully satisfied that the entire selection and appointment of the petitioner was contrary to the procedure laid down under the Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006. Reference in this connection may be usefully made to the judgment of Apex Court in the case of State of Bihar Vs. Upendra Narayan Singh reported in 2009(5) SCC 65 wherein dealing with this very aspect it was held as follows:-

¶57

"By now it is settled that the guarantee of equality before law enshrined in Article 14 is a positive concept and it cannot be enforced by a citizen or court in a negative manner. If an illegality or irregularity has been committed in favour of any individual or a group of individuals or a wrong order has been passed by a judicial forum, others cannot invoke the jurisdiction of the higher or superior court for repeating or multiplying the same irregularity or illegality or for

¶58

Patna High Court CWJC No.20404 of 2012 (2) dt.22-10-2013

¶59

¶60

passing wrong orders- Chandigarh Admn. v. Jagjit Singh, reported in (1995) 1 SCC 745, Jaipur Development Authority v. Daulat Mal Jain, reported in (1997) 1 SCC 35, Union of India v. J.V. Subhaiah reported in (1996) 2 SCC 258, Gursharan Singh v. NDMC reported in (1996) 2 SCC 459, State of Haryana v. Ram Kumar Mann reported in (1997) 3 SCC 321, Faridabad CT Scan Centre v. D.G. Health Services, reported in (1997) 7 SCC 752, Style (Dress Land) v. UT, Chandigarh reported in (1999) 7 SCC 89, State of Bihar v. Kameshwar Prasad Singh, reported in (2000) 9 SCC 94, Union of India v. International Trading Co. reported in (2003) 5 SCC 437 and Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ashwin Jain, reported in (2007) 4 SCC 737.

¶61

That being so, this Court does not find any merit in

¶62

this writ application and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶63

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶64

Rishi/-

Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Anil Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kumar Rishikesh Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Hazrat Ali and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Priyanka Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

Uday Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Subh Narain Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.