This common order dismissed two Letters Patent Appeals filed against a Single Judge's judgment. The Single Judge had upheld the dismissal of an appeal by Pankaj Singh and quashed an order appointing Deepak Kumar due to violation of merit list and expiry of the selection window.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.396 of 2014 In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 99 of 2014
====================================================== DEEPAK KUMAR, SON OF SRI BIJENDRA KUMAR SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SHAHPUR, POST OFFICE SHAHPUR, POLICE STATION SONBARSHA RAJ, DISTRICT SAHARSA .... .... APPELLANT VERSUS
.... .... RESPONDENTS
======================================================
WITH
LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO.602 OF 2014 IN
CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO. 99 OF 2014
====================================================== PANKAJ SINGH, SON OF SRI RADHA BALLABH SINGH, RESIDENT OF VILLAGE SAHMOURA, POST OFFICE SONBARSHA RAJ, POLICE STATION SONBARSHA RAJ, DISTRICT SAHARSA .... .... APPELLANT
VERSUS
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
2
| 6. THE MUKHIYA, SONBARSHA RAJ, S |
GRAM PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, AHARSA |
|---|---|
| 7. THE PANCHAYAT SHAHPUR, SONBAR |
SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT SHA RAJ, SAHARSA |
| 8. DEEPAK KUMAR, | SON OF SRI BIJENDRA KUMAR |
| SINGH, RESIDEN OFFICE SHAHPUR, DISTRICT SAHARS ==================== Appearance : (In LPA No.396 of 2014) |
T OF VILLAGE SHAHPUR, POST POLICE STATION SONBARSHA RAJ, A .... .... RESPONDENTS ================================== |
| For the Appellant : |
Mr. R. P. Singh, Senior Advocate Mr. Pramod Mishra, Advocate |
| For the Respondents : (In LPA No.602 of 2014) |
Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, G. P. 12 Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC to GP 12 |
| For the Appellant : | Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar |
| For the Respondents : ==================== |
Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, G. P. 12 Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC to GP 12 ================================== |
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI AND HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AMARESH KUMAR LAL CAV ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE I. A. ANSARI)
6 12-09-2014 By this common order, we propose to dispose of both the present appeals, which have arisen out of the order, dated 20.01.2014, passed in C.W.J.C. No. 99 of 2014.
2. The questions, as to what were the orders, which had fallen for consideration in CWJC No. 99 of 2014 and how the said writ petition had arisen, take us to the material facts, which led to the making of the order, dated 20.01.2014, aforementioned.
3. The material facts, giving rise to the writ
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
3
petition, may, in brief, be set out as under:
(i) Following a selection process, which had commenced in the year 2006, one Lalitesh Kumar Singh came to be appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher in the year 2007. However, when it surfaced that the said Lalitesh Kumar Singh had obtained appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher on the basis of forged documents, he (Lalitesh Kumar Singh) did not report for duty and disappeared. The two appellants herein, too, claimed to have participated in the said selection process and while the name of Pankaj Singh (appellant in LPA No. 602 of 2014) had appeared at serial number 32 of the select list, the name of the other appellant, namely, Deepak Kumar (appellant in LPA No. 396 of 2014) had appeared at serial number 171 of the said select list.
(ii) Pankaj Kumar filed an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saharsa (hereinafter referred to as “the learned Authority”), which gave rise to Appeal Case No. 34 of 2013, raising the claim for appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher on the ground that since the said Lalitesh Kumar Singh had obtained the appointment on the basis of the forged documents and had also given up the job, he (Pankaj Singh) ought to be appointed on the said post and he be
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
4
directed by the learned Authority to be appointed on the said post of Panchayat Teacher.
(iii) Deepak Kumar, too, filed an appeal before the learned Authority, which gave rise to Appeal No. 32 of 2013, his case being that Pankaj Singh was not an applicant for the said post and, hence, the said Pankaj Singh could not have been appointed and that the appellant, Deepak Kumar, ought to be appointed, though his name had figured at serial no. 171 of the said select list.
(iv) Instead of disposing of the two appeals aforementioned, namely, Appeal Case Nos. 32 of 2013 and 34 of 2013, by one common order, the learned Authority disposed of the said two appeals by two different orders; while the Appeal Case No. 34 of 2013, which had been filed by Pankaj Singh, was disposed of by order, dated 14.09.2013, the other appeal, namely, Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, was disposed of by order, dated 26.09.2013.
(v) By its order, dated 14.09.2013, passed in Appeal Case No. 34 of 2013, which Pankaj Singh had filed, the learned Authority held that the said Pankaj Singh could not prove that he was an applicant for the said post of Panchayat Teacher and, therefore, dismissed the appeal.
(vi) By the order, dated 26.09.2013, passed in Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, the learned Authority,
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
5
however, directed that the said Deepak Kumar be appointed as Panchayat Teacher on the post, which had fallen vacant due to the fact that the said Lalitesh Kumar Singh had left the post.
4. Aggrieved by the two decisions of the learned Authority dismissing the appeal of Pankaj Singh, but allowing the appeal of Deepak Kumar and directing his appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher, Pankaj Singh filed a writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which gave rise to CWJC No. 99 of 2014 aforementioned.
5. The learned single Judge, upon perusal of the two orders, dated 14.09.2013 and 26.09.2013, passed in Appeal Case Nos. 34 of 2013 and 32 of 2013 respectively, and upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, came to the conclusion that the learned Authority has correctly held that Pankaj Singh could not prove that he was an applicant for the post of Panchayat Teacher and, hence, the learned Authority was correct in dismissing the Appeal Case No. 34 of 2014.
6. As regards the order, dated 26.09.2013, passed in Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, which had been preferred by Deepak Kumar (i.e., appellant in L.P.A. No. 396 of 2014), it may be noted that the learned single Judge
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
6
has concluded that since the selection process had commenced in the year 2006 and the Government had directed not to make any appointment to the post of Teacher after 31.12.2010, which was the subject matter of the said appeals, the learned Authority could not have directed as late as in the year 2013 that the appellant (in Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013), namely, Deepak Kumar, be appointed.
7. Coupled with the above, the learned single Judge also noted that since no appointment could have been directed by the learned Authority to be made ignoring the position of merit as found in the said select list and, hence, the question of directing Deepak Kumar’s appointment to the said post of Panchayat Teacher, when the name of Deepak Kumar had figured at serial No. 171 of the said select list, could not have arisen, when there were several other candidates, whose names had appeared above the name of said Deepak Kumar in the select list. In all fairness, according to learned single Judge, the learned Authority ought not have issued any direction for appointment of Deepak Kumar to the post of Panchayat Teacher.
8. Having reached the conclusion, as indicated above, in respect of the order, dated 26.09.2013, passed in
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
7
Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, whereby the learned Authority had directed the appointment of Deepak Kumar to the post of Panchayat Teacher, the learned single Judge, under the order, dated 20.01.2014, has quashed the order passed, on 26.09.2013, in Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, by the learned Authority.
9. Aggrieved by the decision, which had been reached by the learned single Judge, whereby the learned single Judge had upheld the order of the learned Authority declining to direct appointment of Pankaj Singh (i.e., the writ petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 99 of 2014) to the post of Panchayat Teacher, the writ petitioner, namely, Pankaj Singh, has preferred LPA No. 602 of 2014.
10. At the same time, since the learned single Judge has, under the order, dated 20.01.2014, passed in CWJC No. 99 of 2014, interfered with the order, dated 26.09.2013, passed in Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, and quashed thereby the learned Authority’s direction to appoint the said Deepak Kumar, who was appellant in Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, appeal has been preferred by the said Deepak Kumar, too, which has come to be registered as LPA No. 396 of 2014.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties concerned.
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
8
12. Upon perusal of the materials on record including the two orders aforementioned (which have been passed by the learned Authority), and the order, dated 20.01.2014, passed in CWJC No. 99 of 2014, which stands impugned in the present appeals, we find that the learned Authority has assigned cogent reasons for coming to the conclusion that Pankaj Singh could not prove that he was an applicant in the said selection process. This apart, Pankaj Singh’s name, admittedly, appeared at serial No. 32 and his appointment to the said post could not have been directed ignoring the merit position of other candidates in the select list subject, of course, to the provisions of the reservation.
13. Moreover, when the State Government had specifically directed not to make any appointment after 31.12.2010, the learned Authority could not have directed, and had correctly not directed, Pankaj Singh aforementioned to be appointed on the said post of Panchayat Teacher.
14. In no way, therefore, any direction could have been given by the learned Authority for appointment of Pankaj Singh to the said post of Panchayat Teacher. We find no infirmity in the finding of the learned Authority and/or in the finding of the learned single Judge reached in
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
9
this regard.
15. Situated thus, we find no merit in LPA No. 602 of 2014.
16. Coming to the appeal, namely, L.P.A. No. 396 of 2014, which has been preferred by Deepak Kumar, who was respondent No.8 in the writ petition (C.W.J.C. No. 99 of 2014) and who has been directed by the learned Authority, in Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, to be appointed to the said post, the learned single Judge, we find, was wholly correct that ignoring the merit position of the other candidates in the said select list, Deepak Kumar, whose name had figured at serial No. 171 of the merit list, could not have been directed by the learned Authority to be appointed to the said post merely because Deepak Kumar had approached the learned Authority by means of an appeal.
17. We fully agree and we, therefore, see no reason to interfere with the order, dated 20.01.2014, whereby the order, dated 26.09.2013, passed, in Appeal Case No. 32 of 2013, by the learned Authority, has been quashed.
18. Because of the fact that we do not find any infirmity, legal or factual, in the order, dated 20.01.2014, which stands impugned in the present two appeals, these
Patna High Court LPA No.396 of 2014 (6) dt.12-09-2014
10
appeals are hereby dismissed.
19. No order as to costs.
(I. A. Ansari, J.)
Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.: I agree. A.I./-Anand
(Amaresh Kumar Lal, J.)
U √ T X
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the learned Authority was correct in dismissing the appeal of Pankaj Singh who could not prove his candidature.
Whether the learned Authority erred in directing the appointment of Deepak Kumar whose name stood at serial number 171 on the merit list.
Whether the writ petition filed by Pankaj Singh challenging the Single Judge's order should be allowed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Deepak Kumar
Pankaj Singh
The State of Bihar
The Collector, Saharsa
The District Education Officer, Saharsa
The Block Development Office, Sonbarha
I. A. Ansari
Amaresh Kumar Lal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
