Dismissed

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

Patna HC25 Oct 2013CWJC/20683/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This bench examined a writ petition filed by a former Pramukh seeking quashing of a teacher's appointment due to alleged forged documents. The Court held the petitioner had no locus standi post-tenure and dismissed the application as wholly misconceived.

What did the court decide?

The writ application was dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had no locus standi to assail the appointment after ceasing to be the Pramukh.

Veer Prakash Pd. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.20683 of 2012

¶2

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

¶3

Veer Prakash Prasad Son Of Shri Janaki Prasad Resident Of Village - Main Road Mairwa, P.O. Mairwa, Police Station - Mairwa, District - Siwan

¶4

.... .... Petitioner

¶5

Versus

¶6

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

¶7

1. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government Of Bihar, Patna

¶8

The District Magistrate, Siwan

¶9

The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Siwan

¶10

The District Education Officer, Siwan

¶11

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan

¶12

The Prakhand Pramukh Mairwa Prakhand, District - Siwan

¶13

The Block Development Officer, Mairwa, District - Siwan

¶14

The Block Education Officer, Mairwa, District Siwan 10. The Member, District Teacher'S Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan

¶15

Savita Vishwakarma Wife Of Shri Govind Vishwakarma Resident Of Village Anjoria, P.O. Bhatparrani, Police Station Bhatparrani, District - Deoria (Uttar Pradesh), At Present Resident Of Village Lohrpatti, P.O. & Police Station - Mairwa, District Saran, At Present Posted And Working As Prakhand Teacher In Govt. Middle School Bargaon, Anchal Mairwa, District Siwan

¶16

.... .... Respondents

¶17

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

¶18

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awdhesh Kumar Pandey Ga9

¶19

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

¶20

2 25-10-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the following relief(s) prayed in this writ application:-

¶21

“1(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the selection letter of Savita Vishwakarma (private respondent no.11) vide memo no. 402 dated 28.12.2010 issued under

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.20683 of 2012 (2) dt.25-10-2013

(ii)

(iii)

the signature of the authorized officer, by which Savita Vishwakarma (private respondent no.11) has been selected on the post of Prakhand Teacher in Mairwa Prakhand, District Siwan on the basis of forged residential certificate and teacher’s training certificate with connivance of the concerned Block Education Officer, Mairwa even after several documentary evidence available to her.

¶27

For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to terminate the service of Savita Viswakarma (private respondent no.11), Prakhand Teacher of Mairwa Prakhand, who is resident of Uttar Pradesh who has been selected and appointed on the basis of forged residential certificate and teacher’s training certificate with connivance of the concerned Block Education Officer, Mairwa.

¶28

For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to recover the entire amount of payment of salary which has been paid to the private respondent no.11 Savita Vishwakarma by the concerned Block Education Officer, Mairwa, who has been appointed in connivance of each other, which is evidently clear from the report submitted by the Block Education Officer, Mairwa vide letter no. 141 dated 29.7.2012 before the Member, District Teacher’s Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan by which the concerned Block Education Officer, Mairwa has stated that the training certificate of the private respondent no.11 (Savita Vishwakarma) has been ignored and she has been appointed as untrained

¶29

Patna High Court CWJC No.20683 of 2012 (2) dt.25-10-2013

¶30

¶31

teacher, whereas the concerned Block Education Officer, Mairwa has paid the salary to the private respondent no.11 (Savita Vishwakarma) of trained teacher, which is evidently clear from the receipt of payment of Prakhand teacher dated 7.1.2012 signed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Siwan.

¶32

(iv) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to enquire the matter in detail and as Savita Vishwakarma (private respondent no.11), who has got her selection on the basis of forged residential certificate and teacher’s training certificate and the same is evidently clear from the documents available and even after repeated protest she has managed to get her selection on the basis of forged and fabricated documents and also to take an strict action so that no one can dare to act for selection on the basis of forged and fabricated documents. (v) For issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus for commanding and directing the respondent authorities concerned to not linger the matter on one pretext or the other with the connivance of the concerned Block Education Officer, Mairwa, who sought guideline from the Membver, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan usurping the power of the Prakhand Selection Committee.”

¶33

Having regard to the fact that the petitioner is now a busy body who has got no cause of action with the continuance of

¶34

the respondent no.11 on the post of Prakhand Teacher, this

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.20683 of 2012 (2) dt.25-10-2013

¶36

¶37

application must fail only on account of the petitioner having no locus standi to assail the appointment and continuance of the respondent no.11.

¶38

It has to be noted that the petitioner was earlier a Pramukh in whose period of functioning the respondent no.11 under the process of selection got appointed. The petitioner at that point of time had initially raised an objection that the respondent no.11 was not the resident of the locality and her domicile certificate was forged. The petitioner at that point of time in capacity of Pramukh had also directed the Block Education Officer to verify such domicile certificate of the respondent no.11 and thereafter take an appropriate action. It is on record that the petitioner did not succeed in his design because the Block Education Officer did not oblige him in his design by removing the respondent no.11.

¶39

The Block Education Officer in fact had made a reference to the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Siwan (hereinafter to be referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) seeking guidelines as with regard to the action proposed to be taken in the light of the pressure being exerted on him by the Pramukh, the petitioner. It is on record that the Tribunal’s notice was also sent to the petitioner and the petitioner thereafter had

¶40

Patna High Court CWJC No.20683 of 2012 (2) dt.25-10-2013

¶41

¶42

come out with an allegation with regard to the respondent no.11 being not a trained teacher and yet getting an appointment as also salary for the post of trained teacher. He had also explained before the Tribunal that the respondent no.11 was not entitled to be appointed in the State of Bihar as she was not the resident of State of Bihar. The Tribunal again had sought a clarification from the Block Education Officer and the Block Education Officer went on record to satisfy to the Member of the Tribunal that there was no flaw in the appointment of the respondent no.11, inasmuch as, she was appointed as an untrained teacher and even though some payment of a trained teacher was made to her due to inadvertence, the amount thereof had already been recovered from the respondent no.11. As with regard to the domicile certificate, the Block Education Officer had also mentioned that there were two certificates, one of the year 2006 and other of the year 2008 which went to show that the respondent no.11 was the resident of State of Bihar. Thus, as per the report submitted by the Block Education Officer, there was no flaw in the appointment and continuance of the respondent no.11.

¶43

The petitioner while he was continuing as a Pramukh could not succeed in removing the respondent no.11 and, therefore, he has now filed this writ application on 2.11.2012 with

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.20683 of 2012 (2) dt.25-10-2013

¶45

¶46

a prayer for removal of the respondent no.11 from service on the ground that she did not possesses the requisite qualification. In the considered opinion of this Court, once the petitioner ceased to remain the Pramukh of the locality, he at least will have no locusstandi to challenge the appointment of the respondent no.11.

¶47

Additionally, if the petitioner was so much concerned about his own decision to be bad, he himself had to move the Tribunal by assailing the appointment made only by him. That however he did not do because he could not have justified his own alleged illegal action. Let it be noted that the respondent no.11 was not appointed only under the order of the Block Education Officer but, under the orders of the four other members of the Committee of which the petitioner at that point of time used to be its Chairman. Thus, what the petitioner could not have achieved directly was sought to be achieved by him indirectly and in fact by putting pressure on the Block Education Officer. In fact, the Block Education Officer had moved the Tribunal for defending his own action and also justifying the appointment of the respondent no.11. Thus, the impressions being created by the learned counsel for the petitioner that a complaint in the form of appeal is pending before the Tribunal as against the appointment and continuance of the respondent no.11 is wholly misconceived and in fact contrary to

¶48

Patna High Court CWJC No.20683 of 2012 (2) dt.25-10-2013

¶49

¶50

the materials on record. It is the action of the petitioner which was made subject matter of complaint by the Block Education Officer which in fact was also answered in favour of the respondent no.11 by the Tribunal.

¶51

In that view of the matter, this Court would find the present writ application to be wholly misconceived and it is, accordingly, dismissed.

¶52

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

¶53

Rishi/-

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

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Veer Prakash Pd. 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

Sunil Kumar Prasad Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Anand Kumar and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Usha Devi and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

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

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

Ram Nath Rai Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.