Partly allowed

Bipul Bikram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC18 Nov 2014CWJC/8293/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court held that the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority lacked jurisdiction to review the legality of a Panchayat Teacher's appointment. Consequently, the impugned order directing re-engagement of another candidate was set aside, and the petitioner's own appointment was also quashed due to erroneous merit assessment.

What did the court decide?

Impugned order quashed; petitioner's appointment set aside due to wrong assessment of marks; C.W.J.C. No. 8293 of 2010 disposed; C.W.J.C. No. 21067 of 2012 dismissed.

Bipul Bikram Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.8293 of 2010

¶2

====================================================== Bipul Bikram S/O Late Dhirendra Kumar R/O Kawela, P.S. Parbatta, Distt.Khagaria

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus

¶4

The State Of Bihar 2. District Magistrate Khagaria 3. District Superintendent Of Education Khagaria

¶5

Block Development Officer Parbatta Block, Distt.- Khagaria 5. Block Education Extension Officer Parbatta Block, Khagaria 6. Tunni Thakur, Mukhiya Gram Panchayat, Kabela, Block- Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria 7. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Kabela, Block- Parbatta, Distt.Khagaria 8. Appellate Authority, District Teachers Apointment Khagaria, Through Its Member

¶6

Sentu Choudhary S/O Kajo Choudhary R/O Vill.- Balha, P.S. Parbatta, Distt.- Khagaria

¶7

.... .... Respondent/s

¶8

======================================================

¶9

with

¶10

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21067 of 2012

¶11

====================================================== 1. Sentu Choudhary Son Of Rajo Choudhary Resident Of Village - Balha, P.S. - Parbatta, District - Khagaria

¶12

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar , Through The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 2. The Director, Primary Education, Government Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Education Officer, Khagaria 4. The Block Education Officer, Parbatta, Khagaria 5. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj - Kawela, Block - Parbatta, District - Khagaria 6. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj - Kawela, Block - Parbatta, District - Khagaria .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.8293 of 2010) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Uday Bhanu Roy Mr. Anant Kumar For the Pvt. Respondent/s : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Singh For the State : Mrs. Shalini Raut, A.C. to G.A.1 (In CWJC No.21067 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Suryakant Kumar For the Sate : Mr. Sunil Kumar Ravi, A.C. to A.A.G.3 ======================================================

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.8293 of 2010 (8) dt.18-11-2014

¶14

P2/5

¶15

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE CHAKRADHARI SHARAN SINGH

¶16

ORAL ORDER

¶17

The petitioner has filed the present writ application seeking quashing of the order dated 30.04.2010 passed by the Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Khagaria whereby it has directed the concerned Panchayat Teacher’s Appointment Committee to re-engage private respondent No. 9 as Shiksha Mitra after cancelling the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Shikshak of Gram Panchayat Raj Kawela. Respondent No. 9 is petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 21067 of 2012 and has sought quashing of the order dated 22.09.2012 issued by the District Education Officer, Khagaria whereby the District Superintendent of Education, Khagaria has restored the service of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher in the light of an interim order of this Court dated 07.07.2010 passed in the present case. So far as the relief prayed for by Respondent No. 9 of C.W.J.C. No. 8293 of 2010 in this writ application filed vide C.W.J.C. No. 21067 is concerned, apparently the order impugned has been issued in compliance of the interim order of this Court. The said writ application in my view is misconceived and is rejected at the very outset.

¶18

8 18-11-2014

¶19

Respondent No. 9 approached the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority raising a grievance that though

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.8293 of 2010 (8) dt.18-11-2014

¶21

P3/5

¶22

he had higher marks than the petitioner, petitioner was wrongly appointed as Shiksha Mitra by wrongly calculating his score at intermediate level. With specific case that the petitioner had scored 71 marks at intermediate level, representing himself to have secured 731 marks out of 900 at intermediate level, he got selected for his appointment as Shiksha Mitra, Respondent No. 9 asserted before the Appellate Authority that he had better merit points than the petitioner for the purpose of his selection as Shiksha Mitra.

¶23

Learned counsel for the petitioner at the very outset has submitted that the order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority is beyond jurisdiction as such Authority did not have any power vested to go into the legality or otherwise of appointments made to the post of Shiksha Mitra. He has contended, relying upon Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Kalpana Rani Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2014(2) P.L.J.R. 665 and Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey Vs. State of Bihar reported in 2011(4) P.L.J.R. 297 that the Appellate Authority acted beyond jurisdiction by entertaining an appeal against selection of the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra. He accordingly submits that the impugned order deserves to be quashed.

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.8293 of 2010 (8) dt.18-11-2014

¶25

P4/5

¶26

On the basis of the pleadings in the writ application and the counter affidavit, I find that there is no dispute about the fact that the petitioner was selected as Shiksha Mitra on the basis that he scored 731 marks at the Intermediate level out of 900 marks, though he had only 671 marks at that level. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that marks obtained by the petitioner in optional subject was also taken into consideration while preparing the merit-list and thus, the petitioner’s marks at Intermediate level was taken to be 731. He does not dispute that this was wrongly done.

¶27

Learned counsel for the petitioner is right in his submission that the Appellate Authority did not have any jurisdiction to look into the correctness or otherwise of appointments made to the post of Panchayat Teachers in the light of the Division Bench judgment of in case of Full Bench judgment of this Court in case of Kalpana Rani (supra) and Division Bench of this Court in case of Smt. Renu Kumari Pandey (supra).

¶28

The order of the Appellate Authority is accordingly set aside on the ground of lack of jurisdiction.

¶29

However, there being dispute about the fact that the petitioner was selected on the basis of his evaluation which was apparently incorrect, this Court will not allow such selection to

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.8293 of 2010 (8) dt.18-11-2014

¶31

P5/5

¶32

continue once this fact has been brought to the notice of the Court. Therefore, while setting aside the order of the Appellate Authority, I also set aside the appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Teacher which is evidently passed on wrong assessment of his marks at the time of his appointment as Shiksha Mitra.

¶33

C.W.J.C. No. 8293 of 2010 is disposed of accordingly while C.W.J.C. No. 21067 of 2012 is dismissed.

¶34

(Chakradhari Sharan Singh, J.)

¶35

Saif/-

¶36

Bipul Bikram v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bipul Bikram 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

Manbodh Ram Vs the State of Biahr and Ors.

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

Umeshwar Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Nilam Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Madan Gopal Singh Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Sachida Nand Prasad Vs Veer Kunwar Singh University and