Disposed

Umeshwar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC17 Nov 2014CWJC/18796/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court held that seriously disputed questions of fact regarding forged documents preclude adjudication under Article 226. The court directed a vigilance enquiry into discrepancies in the petitioner's Intermediate examination marksheets. The writ application was disposed of, reserving civil remedies for the dispute.

What did the court decide?

Vigilance enquiry directed into discrepancies in examination marksheets; writ application disposed of with liberty to approach civil court; original records to be kept in safe custody.

Umeshwar Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18796 of 2012

¶3

	====================================================== 1. Umeshwar Thakur Son of Sri Harischandra Thakur Resident of Village - Kalna, P.S. - Harlakhi, District - Madhubani
	.... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2.Director Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. District Programme Officer, Establishment, Madhubani 4. Block Education Extension Officer, Harlakhi, Madhubani 5. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Kalna, P.S. - Harlakhi, District - Madhubani 6. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Kalna, P.S. - Harlakhi, District - Madhubani 7. Sanjay Kumar Thakur Son Of Sri Shiv Shankar Thakur Resident Of Village - Kalna, P.S. - Harlakhi, District - Madhubani 8. District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Madhubani 9. Head Master, Govt. Primary School, Katharwa, P.S. Harlakhi, Distt.- Madhubani .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Banwari Sharma, Advocate Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate Mr. Shajanand Sharma, Advocate Mr. Mangal lok Prabha, Advocate For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Advocate Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh, Advocate For the State Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, AC to GP12 For the Panchayat Secy. Mr. Sunil Kumar, Advocate ======================================================
	CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH ORAL ORDER
20	17-11-2014 The present writ application involves series of disputed
	questions of facts which cannot be adjudicated upon in a
	proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated
	17.08.2012 passed by the District Teachers Appointment
	Appellate Authority, Madhubani (annexure-7) whereby, the

¶4

Patna High Court CWJC No.18796 of 2012 (21) dt.17-11-2014

¶5

2/7

¶6

Authority has directed for cancellation of re-joining of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher and has also directed for reinstatement of respondent No.7 on the said post.

¶7

At the outset, I intend to indicate the questions of facts, which are in dispute.

¶8

It is the petitioner’s case that he was appointed as Shiksha Mitra on the basis of recommendation made by Sukh Subidha Committee of Gram Panchayat Raj, Kalna under the district of Madhubani in a meeting held on 24.05.2005. It is his case that he was posted in Primary school, Katharwa and his appointment was on contract basis for a period of 11 months, which was subsequently renewed for further 11 months by letter No.9 dated 20.06.2006. It is his specific case that as on 01.07.2006 he was functioning as Shiksha Mitra and, therefore, by operation of Rule 20(iii) of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 he became Panchayat Teacher. It is his further case that he continued to work as Panchayat Teacher without any hindrance till he received a notice from the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Madhubani on an appeal preferred by respondent No.7.

¶9

Case of respondent No.7, on the other hand, is that petitioner obtained appointment as Shiksha Mitra on the basis of a forged marks sheet issued by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna showing him to have secured 756 marks in the Intermediate examination. As stated in the counter affidavit, at the time of submission of his application, the petitioner represented that he secured 756 marks in the Intermediate examination on the basis of a marks sheet, a copy of which has been brought on record. In the writ application, the marks sheet issued by Bihar

¶10

Patna High Court CWJC No.18796 of 2012 (21) dt.17-11-2014

¶11

3/7

¶12

Intermediate Education Council, Patna in favour of the petitioner has been brought on record as annexure-1 by the petitioner showing that the petitioner secured 546 marks in intermediate examination. The dispute which is being raised on behalf of respondent No.7 is that instead of submission of correct marks sheet, as contained in annexure-1, the petitioner presented before the Sukh Subidha Committee a forged marks sheet showing 756 marks in Intermediate examination for the purpose of his selections as Shiksha Mitra and secured appointment. On the other hand, it is the petitioner’s plea that the marks sheet showing the petitioner to have secured 756 marks in the Intermediate examination, as brought on record by the respondent No.7, is a forged document. It is the petitioner’s case that he never presented before the Sukh Subidha Committee any such marks sheet showing that he secured 756 marks in the Intermediate examination. It is also the case of the petitioner that in the application “in form- Ka” he never represented to have secured 756 marks in the Intermediate examination.

¶13

Pursuant to an order of this court, the original records relating to selection to the post of Shiksha Mitra of concerned Panchayat has been produced by learned counsel for the State.

¶14

From the said records, it appears that petitioner’s marks in the Intermediate examination have been shown to be 756. In response to this, it is the case of the petitioner that even that document is forged and office bearers of the concerned Panchayat connived with respondent No.7 and tampered with the records of the selection process for appointment as Shiksha Mitra. These are apparent two disputed questions of facts that as to whether the petitioner submitted marks sheet issued by Bihar Intermediate

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.18796 of 2012 (21) dt.17-11-2014

¶16

4/7

¶17

Education Council, Patna showing him to have secured 756 marks and whether in the application form he mentioned 756 marks to be the score in Intermediate examination.

¶18

There is third disputed question of fact.

¶19

As per respondent No.7, the petitioner had submitted his resignation while working as Shiksha Mitra. It has been submitted on behalf of respondent No.7 that this petitioner did it when he learnt that the fraud committed by him had come to the notice of the functionaries of the Gram Panchayat. The resignation tendered by the petitioner was accepted, according to the respondent No.7, and the vacancy caused consequent upon such resignation was subsequently filled up by appointing him against that post. This fact has been disputed by the petitioner with specific plea that he never tendered any resignation by functioning as Shiksha Mitra and respondents have taken absolutely false plea that the petitioner tendered resignation. In support of the plea that the petitioner had tendered resignation, which was accepted by the Sukh Subidha Committee of the said Gram Panchayat, reference has been made to annexure-8 to the writ application. The petitioner has also brought on record a communication of the Block Education Extension Officer, Harlakhi which according to him contains the real state of affairs and is dated 15.10.2005 indicating that the members of the Sukh Subidha Committee did not accept any such resignation. At this stage, it is the plea of the petitioner that the document, which has been brought on record as annexure-9 to the writ application, is forged. On the one hand the plea of the petitioner is that he, after his appointment as Shiksha Mitra in the year 2005, continuously worked as such till he became Panchayat Teacher by operation of Rule 18(iii) of Bihar

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.18796 of 2012 (21) dt.17-11-2014

¶21

5/7

¶22

Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 with effect from 01.07.2006, the plea on behalf of respondent No.7 is that the petitioner never functioned as Panchayat Teacher as resignation tendered by him was subsequently accepted.

¶23

As I have indicated above, the original records pertaining to selection and appointment to the post of Shiksha Mitra of the concerned Gram Panchayat have been produced by learned counsel for the State. The petitioner has seriously disputed the genuineness of the original records.

¶24

In the facts and circumstances of the case, this court finds it impossible in a proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to adjudicate upon such seriously disputed questions of facts. The parties will be at liberty to approach the appropriate forum for the redressal of their grievances.

¶25

The facts of the present case give a very sordid state of affairs. On the one hand it has been claimed that petitioner represented to have secured higher marks on the basis of a forged marks sheet in the Intermediate examination, plea on behalf of the petitioner is that the said marks sheet showing higher marks in his favour has been forged by respondent No.7 in order to discredit him.

¶26

I have seen annexure-1 to the writ application, which is the petitioner’s marks sheet of Intermediate examination conducted by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna showing him to have secured 546 marks. There is photo copy of another marks sheet issued by Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna issued in favour of the petitioner. In both the copies of marks sheet petitioner’s name, roll code, roll No., enlistment

¶27

Patna High Court CWJC No.18796 of 2012 (21) dt.17-11-2014

¶28

6/7

¶29

No. and other details almost tally, i.e., 5220, 10294, M/6319/92 except M.S. No. 002173 and marks obtained by the petitioner in different subjects. This, in my opinion, is a serious matter and requires to be investigated by the State Vigilance. I direct the Additional Director General, Vigilance, State of Bihar, therefore, to cause an enquiry into the matter with reference to the marks sheet, brought on record as annexure-1 to the writ application showing 546 marks in favour of the petitioner with roll code 5220, roll No. 10294 as well as other copy with same roll code and roll No. showing 756 marks as secured by the petitioner. I direct the Additional Director General, Vigilance, State of Bihar to enquire whether the petitioner relied upon the said score of 756 in Intermediate examination before the Sukh Subidha Committee of the concerned Gram Panchayat. It is indicated that the vigilance enquiry shall be confined to this aspect only. After holding a preliminary enquiry, if the Additional Director General, Vigilance, State of Bihar comes to a finding that a criminal case is made out, he will proceed accordingly.

¶30

It is observed that preliminary enquiry by the Additional Director General, Vigilance, State of Bihar must be concluded within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order.

¶31

Let a copy of this order be communicated to the Director General of Police, Bihar, Patna through fax.

¶32

This writ application is disposed of accordingly.

¶33

The petitioner shall be at liberty to approach the civil court of competent jurisdiction for adjudication of the dispute. It goes without saying that the petitioner has remedy to seek interim order against the functioning of respondent No.7 which can be

¶34

Patna High Court CWJC No.18796 of 2012 (21) dt.17-11-2014

¶35

7/7

¶36

considered in accordance with law.

¶37

Let the original records be returned to learned counsel for the State. Learned counsel for the State undertakes that he will make available to the Additional Director General, Vigilance, State of Bihar the pleadings of the present proceeding.

¶38

The original records, which have been returned to Learned counsel for the State, shall be handed over to learned State counsel to be kept in safe custody of learned Advocate General for them being handed over to Additional Director General, Vigilance, State of Bihar.

¶39

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J)

¶40

BKS/U

Umeshwar Thakur v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Umeshwar Thakur 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

Bhola Paswan Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Gujeshwar YADAVand Anr. Vs Kameshwar Singh Darrbhanga San

Shashi Shekhar Kumar and Anr. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Manbodh Ram Vs the State of Biahr and Ors.

Satya Narayan Prasad and Anr. Vs the Union of India and Ors.

Dr.Ram Yatan Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.