Dismissed

Uttam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC28 Oct 2013CWJC/20672/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court dismissed the writ petition challenging an order rejecting the petitioner's claim for appointment as Panchayat Teacher. The Court held that the petitioner's removal in 2006 extinguished the right to absorption and found no evidence of valid continuous service beyond the initial eleventh-month period.

What did the court decide?

Writ application dismissed; claim for appointment as Panchayat Teacher rejected.

Uttam 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.20672 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== Uttam Kumar Son Of Munshi Thakur Resident Of Village - Hathiyanwan, P.S. - Khijarsarai, District - Gaya .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Human Resources Department, Vikash Bhawan, Belli Road, Patna 2. The District Superintendent Of Education, Gaya 3. The Block Development Officer, Khijarsarai, Gaya 4. The Block Education Extension , Khijarsarai, Gaya 5. The Appointment Committee Panchayat Primary Teacher, Headed By Mukhia Hathinyanwan, Gram Panchayat Raj Gaya 6. The Mukhia Hathinyanwan Gram Panchayat Raj Gaya 7. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Gaya 8. The Principal Primary School Mahaker Khijarsarai, Gaya 9. Member Bihar Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Manbansh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Priyank Deepak, AC to SC19 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 28-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to legality and correctness of an order dated 29.5.2012 passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) in Case No. 11/2012 rejecting the claim of appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Having regard to the fact that the Tribunal has gone into the crucial aspect as with respect to the very engagement of the petitioner as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra to be in violation of prescribed roaster which in turn eventually did not give any right

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.20672 of 2012 (2) dt.28-10-2013

¶4

¶5

to the petitioner to stake his claim for either being continued on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra or also being absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teacher, this Court will not now like to interfere in the matter primarily on the ground that the petitioner stands removed from the service way back in the year 2006 itself. It has to be kept in mind that the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra were in existence only upto 30.6.2006, whereafter the functional or working Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as on 1.7.2006 had been absorbed as a Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1.7.2006.

¶6

There is in fact nothing on record to show that the petitioner’s engagement allegedly made on 23.5.2005 as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra was inconsonance with the prescribed roaster of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra wherein for the male category there were two posts for reserved candidates, one for backward candidate and one for Scheduled Caste candidate. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on Annexure 4, the so called proceedings dated 23.5.2005 of the Panchayat also can be of no avail because that was the subject matter of the enquiry as directed by the Collector of the District in his letter dated 7.6.2005. Obviously the petitioner was, therefore, under legal obligation to produce before the Tribunal some more clinching evidence with regard to there being availability of post of

¶7

Patna High Court CWJC No.20672 of 2012 (2) dt.28-10-2013

¶8

¶9

Extremely Backward category so as to justify the so called selection and appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. Unfortunately the petitioner did not do so.

¶10

What would really clinch the issue in favour of the respondents and eventually would go against the petitioner is that the petitioner did not also receive payment of remuneration and at least there is nothing to show that as on 30.6.2006 he was continuing as Shiksha Mitra and his services were absorbed as a Panchayat Teacher. It has to be noted that the only working Panchayat Shiksha Mitra as on 1.7.2006 in view of Rule 20(iii) of the Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006 were deemed to have been absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. In fact the petitioner had also not brought on record either before the Tribunal or before this Court the order of extension of service of the petitioner after his first so called engagement as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra which on expiry of the period of eleven months had automatically come to an end on 24.4.2006.

¶11

It has to be noted that even if this Court may proceed on an assumption that the petitioner’s selection and appointment on an unavailable post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in Extremely Backward category, contrary to the roaster prescribed by the

¶12

Patna High Court CWJC No.20672 of 2012 (2) dt.28-10-2013

¶13

¶14

Government, was made on 23.5.2005, his tenure of service could have been only for a period of eleven months. After eleven months there had to be an extension of service as per guidelines for the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by a way an order and agreement. It is here that this Court would find that as a matter of fact the Panchayat Committee has met again on 28.3.2006 but in that proceedings name of the petitioner nowhere finds place so as to give him the benefit of continuation in service beyond a period of eleven months which had come to an end on 24.4.2006.

¶15

Thus, the issue decided by the Tribunal in the light of the counter affidavit in the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner, C.W.J.C.No. 6290/2007 cannot be said to be procedurally incorrect. Before the Tribunal the onus was on the petitioner to prove his case and therefore, if the Tribunal had gone to rely on an un-rebutted counter affidavit by the respondents containing the documents, a copy whereof was also produced for perusal by the learned counsel for the petitioner before this Court, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in deciding the case of the petitioner.

¶16

That being so, this writ application must fail and is accordingly dismissed.

¶17

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶18

surendra/-

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.20672 of 2012 (2) dt.28-10-2013 5

Uttam Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Uttam 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

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.

Sarita Kumari and Anr. 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.