Allowed

Suresh Pd. Mehta and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC22 Jul 2014CWJC/358/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Writ petition by three teachers selected in the second phase of Block Teacher appointments in 2008, who were not issued appointment letters due to administrative disputes and subsequent closure of phases. The Court held that an Appellate Authority's order requiring the agency to consider the entire panel created a right for all candidates, directing respondents to issue appointment letters based o

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to consider petitioners' cases on the basis of their rank in the original 2008 panel against existing vacancies and issue appointment letters.

Suresh Pd. Mehta and Ors. Vs The State Of… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.358 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== 1. Suresh Prasad Mehta S/O Sri Bhuneshwari Mehta R/O Village- Andauli, P.S.- Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa 2. Ram Bahadur Mehta S/O Sri Ram Sunder Mehta R/O Village- Andauli, P.S.- Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa 3. Deo Narayan Mehta S/O Sri Biren Mehta R/O Village- Andauli, P.S.Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶4

The Director, Primary Education Human Resources Development Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶5

The District Education Programme Offcer, Supaul

¶6

The District Education Officer, Supaul

¶7

The Block Development Officer, Chattapur, Supaul

¶8

The Block Education Officer, Chhattapur, Supaul

¶9

The Block Pramukh, Block- Chhattapur, District- Supaul

¶10

The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Supaul

¶11

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Maya Shankar Mishra Mr. Raj Kumar Rajesh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanjay Pandey, G.P.21 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH ORAL ORDER

¶12

9 22-07-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶13

records.

¶14

Second phase of appointment of Block Teachers of Chhattapur Block of Supaul District was taken up in 2008 by the Employment Agency. Applications were invited in which three petitioners along with many others were applicants. Merit list was prepared and counseling was held on 24.1.2009. After the

¶15

Patna High Court CWJC No.358 of 2013 (9) dt.22-07-2014

¶16

2/7

¶17

counseling, petitioners were selected and by Annexure-1 series dated 4.3.2009, each of them were asked to submit their written consent. Consent was submitted on the same day.

¶18

For the second phase of appointments, Government had fixed up 12.8.2010 as the date for issue of appointment letters. However, appointment letters could not be issued in this Block to the selected teachers due to some dispute between Block Pramukh and Block Development Officer. Meanwhile, Department issued letters on 4.12.2010 and 24.12.2010, vide Annexures-A and B with the counter affidavit of respondent no.5 (wrongly labeled as counter affidavit of respondent no.4). By these letters, 28.12.2010 was fixed as the last date for issue of appointment letters to the Block Teachers by the Department. It was made clear that appointment letters issued after that date shall not be treated as valid. Employment Agencies were restrained from making appointments after that date and it was held that all processes of appointment for second phase shall be treated as closed. It was stated that only in disputed matters under the orders of the Appellate Authority and by special Government orders appointments could be made. On 28.12.2010 petitioners approached the Block Office but on that day also due to continuing dispute between Block Pramukh and Block

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.358 of 2013 (9) dt.22-07-2014

¶20

3/7

¶21

Development Officer appointment letters could not be issued. Accordingly, petitioner approached the Appellate Authority individually in January, 2011 itself. The Appellate Authority noticed the stand of the District Education Officer that there was a ban on appointments. Hence, by orders dated 30.3.2011 and 30.4.2011, vide Annexure-2 series, the Authority directed the petitioners to participate in the selection process after the ban was recalled.

¶22

Meanwhile, some other candidates from the same panel moved this Court directly through C.W.J.C. No.3810 of 2011. The said writ application was heard, and by order dated 20.12.2011, vide Annexure-4, they were directed to approach the Appellate Authority. Those candidates moved the Appellate Authority and in their case orders were passed on 2.8.2012, vide Annexure-5 with the supplementary affidavit. In view of the directions of the Appellate Authority in the said order, those candidates were issued appointment letters and were posted in different schools.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the said order of the Appellate Authority was a general order in respect of entire incomplete selection process and in respect of all the vacancies covered by the advertisement. Hence, in the light of

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.358 of 2013 (9) dt.22-07-2014

¶25

4/7

¶26

that order, along with the said appellants before the Appellate Authority, cases of the petitioners should also have been considered and they should have also been issued appointment letters. This has not been done compelling the petitioners to move this Court.

¶27

Counter affidavits have been filed by respondent nos.5 and 7. With the counter affidavit said letters of the Department dated 4.12.2010 and 24.12.2010 have been annexed as Annexures-A and B. Another letter of the Department dated 22.6.2012 has been annexed as Annexure-C. On the strength of these letters, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in terms of the directions of the Department second phase of appointment was closed and thereafter the remaining vacancies were included in the third phase and appointments were made. In the process of third phase of appointment, petitioners did not approach the Employment Agency as they were directed by the Appellate Authority by Annexure-2 series. He submits that thereafter third phase of appointment had also closed and fourth phase of appointment was also taken up, which stands closed and now fifth phase is in progress and is likely to end very soon. He submits that the petitioners, who claim appointment on the basis of their rank in the original panel of the second phase, did not

¶28

Patna High Court CWJC No.358 of 2013 (9) dt.22-07-2014

¶29

5/7

¶30

approach the Employment Agency in the third phase or subsequently. In the circumstances, petitioners have no right to pray for any mandamus from this Court for consideration of their cases.

¶31

Prima facie, submissions of learned counsel for the respondents make sense. But this Court finds that even though these petitioners did not get any relief from the Appellate Authority for their appointments from the panel prepared in the second phase, order of the Appellate Authority dated 2.8.2012 passed in the case of other panelists definitely created a right in them also of consideration along with the appellants of the said case. Observations and direction of the Appellate Authority in the last two paragraphs of the order make it clear that the Employment Agency had to take up whole panel for appointment on vacancies notified for appointment in the second phase and from the panel appointments were to be made on merits. For easy reference, observations and directions of the Appellate Authority are reproduced herein below :-

¶32

“ Certificate Roster , , notification

¶33

Patna High Court CWJC No.358 of 2013 (9) dt.22-07-2014

¶34

6/7

¶35

up-to-date , , B.E.O., , Roster, , physical teachers ”

¶36

Clearly, this direction of the Appellate Authority was a general direction, which covered the cases of all the candidates empanelled. Hence, even if petitioners did not appear in the third phase of appointment, right accrued to them to be considered for their appointments on the basis of original panel in the light of this order of the Appellate Authority. Order of the Appellate Authority is a quasi judicial order. Therefore, the same had to be implemented and complied with in true letter and spirit by the Employment Agency. It may be pointed out that in the letter dated 4.12.2010 the Department had also made it clear that in disputed matters, in the light of the orders of the Appellate Authority and on the basis of special directions of the Department, appointments could be made. Hence, the Department itself accepted that the orders of the Appellate Authority had to be implemented and

¶37

Patna High Court CWJC No.358 of 2013 (9) dt.22-07-2014

¶38

7/7

¶39

complied with as an exception to the directions of the Department in the said two letters dated 4.12.2010 and 24.12.2010.

¶40

As a result, this writ application is allowed. Respondents are directed to consider the cases of the petitioners on the basis of their rank in their respective original panel of 2008 against the existing vacancy of the category and issue them appointment letters in the light of consent letter already submitted by them on the request of the authorities of the Employment Agency, as contained in Annexure-1 series. Petitioners shall submit a formal application with the authorities of the Employment Agency along with a copy of this order on the basis of which their cases shall be considered by the Employment Agency and petitioners shall be intimated by them for collection of appointment letters within one month from the date of filing of the applications.

¶41

(Jayanandan Singh, J)

¶42

Pradeep/-

¶43

Suresh Pd. Mehta and Ors. v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Pd. Mehta and Ors. 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

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sriram Mahto Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Md. Nazmul Haq and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Umakant Giri Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Shrawan Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Vijay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Seema Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.