The Patna High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the non-appointment of petitioners empanelled for Panchayat Teacher posts. The court held that closure of selection phases removed indefeasible rights.
The petition seeking appointment was dismissed.
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 Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4672 of 2013
.... .... Respondent/s
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajiv Ranjan, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Smt. Nilu Agrawal, GA-6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER
were applicant for the post of Panchayat Teacher in which selection process had started in the year 2008 and there was some counselling also held on 28.02.2009, this Court would find it difficult to issue
any direction for considering the case of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.4672 of 2013 (2) dt.08-05-2014
2
petitioners for their appointment for a simple reason that the second phase of appointment of teachers had already been closed on 31.12.2010. Any vacancy which had remained unfilled thereafter had been made subject matter of third phase of appointment and in fact that phase has already been completed. Thus, merely because the petitioners at one point of time were empanelled will not give them any indefeasible right of being appointed. This aspect of the matter has already been settled by the Apex Court in the case of Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India reported in AIR 1991 SC 1612.
That being so, this application is wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)
Ranjan/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioners have an indefeasible right to appointment as Panchayat Teachers after the closure of the selection and counselling process in 2008-2009.
Whether the court can direct appointment despite completion of subsequent appointment phases.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of IndiaReferred¶21
_Shankarsan Dash Vs. Union of India_ reported in _AIR 1991 SC 1612_
Md. Asfak Khan S/O Sarfuddin Khan
Kumari Vimla Diwedi D/O Ram Bharat Diwedi
Ashok Kumar S/O Bahadur Prasad
The State Of Bihar
Mihir Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
