Allowed

Babita Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC23 Oct 2013CWJC/3350/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed a writ application challenging the cancellation of appointment of a Prakhand Teacher by the Block Development Officer. The court held that following the 2008 amendment to the Bihar Primary Teachers Rules, the Block Development Officer lacked jurisdiction, and the order was quashed.

What did the court decide?

The letter dated 25.1.2010 cancelling the petitioner's appointment is quashed and set aside.

Babita Kumari 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.3350 of 2010

¶2

====================================================== 1. Babita Kumari W/O Sanjay Kumar Thakur R/O Vill.- Taiyabpur, P.O.Taiyabpur, Block Desari, Distt.- Vaishali. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Commissioner Cum Secretary Deptt. Of Education, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Deptt. Of Secondary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Deptt. Of Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, New Secretariat, Bihar, Patna 4. The Secretary, The District Teacher's Employment Appellate Authority, Vaishali At Hajipur 5. The District Magistrate, Vaishali 6. The District Education Officer, Vaishali 7. The District Superintendent Of Education, Vaishali 8. The Block Development Officer, Desari Block Under Vaishali Distt. 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Desari Block Under Vaishali Distt. 10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Bhikhanpura, Block Desari, Distt.- Vaishali 11. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj Bhikhanpur, Desari Block Under Vaishali Distt. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Kumar For the Respondent/s : A.C. to S.C. 26 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR MANDAL ORAL ORDER

¶3

5 23-10-2013 Heard Mr. Shivendra Kishore for the petitioner and

¶4

learned A.C. to S.C. 26 for the State.

¶5

Aggrieved by letter dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure-1) passed by the Respondent Block Development Officer, Desari, the petitioner has filed the present writ application. By the said order, the Respondent Block Development Officer has cancelled the engagement/appointment of the petitioner as Prakhand Teacher on

¶6

Patna High Court CWJC No.3350 of 2010 (5) dt.23-10-2013

¶7

¶8

the ground(s) set out therein.

¶9

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that after the coming into force of the Bihar Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (for short “ the Rules”) as amended on 25.8.2008, the Block Development Officer is not authorized to pass such order. There is no controversy that the petitioner was initially engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra (for short “PSM”) and was subsequently absorbed as Prakhand Teacher by virtue of the provisions contained in Rule 20(iii) of the Rules. Mr. Shivendra Kishore learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in terms of the provisions contained in Rule 20(ii), the previous circular/resolution governing the selection or service condition of PSM stood abolished. In the Rules, initially the Block Development Officer was designated as the authority to consider any grievance respecting the selection of Panchayat Teacher and the Deputy Development Commissioner was designated as the Appellate Authority for the Prakhand Teachers. The said provision was amended w.e.f. 25.8.2008. Rule 18, after such amendment, provides that any such claim or issue shall be considered by the Tribunal constituted under Rule 18 of the Rules. The impugned order was passed on 25.1.2010 by the Block Development Officer, Desari. It is thus submitted that the said

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.3350 of 2010 (5) dt.23-10-2013

¶11

¶12

respondent completely lacked the jurisdiction and on this score itself, the impugned order merits to be interfered with and set aside.

¶13

Learned counsel for the State submits that on bare perusal of the order impugned in the present writ application, it would appear that the petitioner had manipulated with the documents relating to her educational qualification/certificate(s). It was a case where fraud was played on the authority.

¶14

Having considered the submissions of the parties, it appears that the impugned order was passed on 25.1.2010 by the Block Development Officer, Desari. After amendment of the Rules, such power has now been vested with the Tribunal constituted under the Rules. The Block Development Officer is not the appropriate authority. There is agreement at Bar that Panchayat Samiti is the Appointing Authority in the case of the petitioner who was subsequently absorbed as Prakhand Teacher. If any such fraud was played by the petitioner, the Appointing Authority could have taken appropriate steps/action against the petitioner and aggrieved thereby, the petitioner could have filed an appeal before the Tribunal. In the case at hand, the order impugned has not been passed by the Appointing Authority. The action has been taken by the Block Development Officer who has

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.3350 of 2010 (5) dt.23-10-2013

¶16

¶17

no role to play after the enforcement of the amended Rules in 2008. Mr. Shivendra Kishore has relied on an order passed by this Court (Annexure-7) wherein interference was made with the impugned order on the said ground of lack of jurisdiction. Even otherwise, from perusal of the provisions of the Rules, it is more than explicit that the Block Development Officer is not the authorized officer/authority to pass any such order.

¶18

For the reasons aforenoted, this Court is satisfied that the present application merits to be allowed. It is accordingly allowed. The order contained in letter dated 25.1.2010 (Annexure1) is quashed and set aside. The order present shall, however, not preclude the appropriate authority to proceed against the petitioner, if the facts so warrant, in accordance with law.

¶19

No cost(s).

¶20

(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J)

¶21

Pankaj/-

Babita Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Babita Kumari 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

Narendra Kumar Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Balbhadra Jha Vs the Chairman Bihar Sanskrit Sh

Arshad Hussain and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Raqaiya Khatoon Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr.Anil Kumar Tiwary Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Uttam Kumar Das Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.