Allowed

Sangeeta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Feb 2015L.P.A/1610/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Letters Patent Appeal allowed. Bench remanded the matter to the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority for fresh consideration and disposal of the challenge to the appellant's 2009 teacher appointment, directing the authority to decide the limitation issue and verify facts before taking up the matter on merits.

What did the court decide?

Letters Patent Appeal allowed; order dated 10.04.2012 set aside; matter remanded to the 2nd respondent Court disputes the issue of limitation.

Sangeeta Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.1610 of 2014 IN

¶3

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 19118 of 2012 With Interlocutory Application No. 9118 of 2014

¶4

¶5

Letters Patent Appeal No.1610 of 2014

¶6

=========================================================== Sangeeta Kumari, Wife of Ashok Kumar Nirala, Resident of Village - Murarchak, P.O.- Paliganj Sehra, P.S.- Sigori, District –Patna.

¶7

.... .... Petitioner-Appellant/s

¶8

Versus

¶9

The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶10

The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Bihar through its Secretary, Computer Bhawan, Government Girls High School, Bankipur, Golghar, Patna.

¶11

The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Patna

¶12

The Block Education Officer, Paliganj, Patna

¶13

The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Mahabalipur, Paliganj, Patna

¶14

The Headmaster, New Primary School, Mahabalipur, Bazar, Paliganj, Patna

¶15

Sangeeta Kumari, wife of Santosh Kumar, Resident of Village + P.S.- Sigori District - Patna.

¶16

.... .... Respondent/s

¶17

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Sarva Deo Singh, Advocate For the Respondent-State : Mr. Dhurjati K. Parasad, G.P.7 For the respondent no.7 : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶18

And

¶19

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN

¶20

ORAL JUDGMENT

¶21

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) Date: 05-02-2015

¶22

In the year 2009, the Gram Panchayat Mahabalipur Bazar, Paliganj, Patna district, initiated steps for appointment of teachers in primary school. One such post was reserved in favour of Extremely Backward Woman.

¶23

Patna High Court LPA No.1610 of 2014 dt.05-02-2015

¶24

2/4

¶25

The appellant and the 7^th respondent, whose name is also Sangeeta Kumari, and several others submitted applications. The appellant was selected and appointed as teacher on 29.01.2009.

¶26

The 7^th respondent challenged the appointment of the appellant before the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Patna- 2^nd respondent herein, in the year 2012. It was pleaded that she secured 70% marks in the Intermediate, whereas the appellant secured 63.33% and she is entitled to be appointed. After issuing notice to the appellant, the 2^nd respondent passed order dated 10.04.2012 setting aside the appointment of the appellant and directing that the vacancy be filled with meritorious candidate after following the procedure.

¶27

The appellant filed CWJC No.19118 of 2012 challenging the order passed by the 2^nd respondent. It was pleaded that the limitation for filing an appeal before the 2^nd respondent was only thirty days, and though there is facility for filing an application for condonation of delay, no such application was filed, and straightway, an appeal was filed three years after the selection was entertained. Other grounds were also urged.

¶28

After hearing both the parties, the learned

¶29

Patna High Court LPA No.1610 of 2014 dt.05-02-2015

¶30

3/4

¶31

Single Judge dismissed the writ petition through the order dated 21.06.2013. Hence, this Letters Patent Appeal.

¶32

Heard Sri Sarvadeo Singh, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri Dhurjati Kumar Prasad, learned Government Pleader for the respondent-State and Sri Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the respondent no.7.

¶33

The appointment of the appellant as teacher was made way back in the year 2009. The relevant provisions provide for filing of an appeal by the aggrieved candidate before the appellate authority. However, such appeal must be filed within thirty days. The facility of condonation of delay exists. Obviously, an application for condonation of delay must be filed, if it is presented beyond thirty days. Admittedly, no such application was filed by the 7^th respondent. In fact, the plea of the respondent before the learned Single Judge was that no period of limitation stipulates under the Rules. It is difficult to accept that contention.

¶34

Apart from the plea of limitation, there exist some other questions of fact, which need to be verified. For instance, in one of the communications between the Block Development Officer, Paliganj, Patna and the 2^nd respondent, it was mentioned that the 7^th respondent has received the

¶35

Patna High Court LPA No.1610 of 2014 dt.05-02-2015

¶36

4/4

¶37

intimation about the counselling and selection. These facts need to be verified, with reference to the record. The finding of the Tribunal was based only upon the genuinity of the stamp affixed to the certificate of posting.

¶38

We are of the view that the matter needs to be remanded to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and disposal.

¶39

In the result, the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed and the order dated 10.04.2012 passed by the 2^nd set is set aside. The matter is remanded to the 2^nd respondent for fresh consideration and disposal. Before it takes up the matter on merits, the 2^nd respondent shall decide the question of limitation and shall take into account, the .provisions of law and the facts pleaded by the parties.

¶40

Interlocutory application, if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶41

(L. Narasimha Reddy, CJ)

¶42

(Vikash Jain, J)

¶43

Sunil/-

¶44

Sangeeta Kumari v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sangeeta Kumari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sita Ram Pandit Vs The State Of Bihar

Dhiraj Ram Vs The State Of Bihar

Kuldeep Singh Vs The State Of Bihar

Ashok Singh @ Munna Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar

Sk. Rafique Vs State of Bihar and Ors.

Anurodh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.