Petitioner challenged state authority order reinstating another candidate appointed with lower marks. Court found no illegality in the authority's reliance on available records and dismissed the writ.
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.9020 of 2019
======================================================
Nirmala Kumari, Wife of Kesto Mohan Yadav, Resident of Village- Chopra Bakhari, P.O. Haldi Khora, P.S.- Kochaa Dhaman, District- Kishanganj.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Jitendra Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prabhakar Jha (Gp27)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANJANI KUMAR SHARAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 15-02-2024
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
“That the present writ petition is being filed for setting aside the order dated 08.03.2019 passed in Appeal No. 400 of 2017 by the learned State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna, whereby and whereunder the appeal preferred by the respondent no. 10 has been allowed and directed the Panchayat Employment Unit, Haldikhora to reinstate the appellant (respondent no. 10) on the post of panchayat teacher after cancellation of
Patna High Court CWJC No.9020 of 2019 dt.15-02-2024 2/8
employment of the petitioner and for any other necessary relief/reliefs to which the petitioner is found legally entitled in the facts and circumstances of the case.”
Gram Panchayat, HaldiKhora, four posts were vacant for appointment of Panchayat Teacher in the second phase-2008, which are as follows: 2 post- Urdu Knowing Candidates, 1 postUnreserved Female, 1 post- Backward Class.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9020 of 2019 dt.15-02-2024 3/8
vide memo no. 05 dated 14.08.2010 as Panchayat Teacher under UR Female Category who has lesser mark than the petitioner. He further submits that the petitioner had appeared in the counselling held on 28.02.2009 and 14.08.2010 respectively. In this regard the Sarpanch and other panch issued certificate on 15.12.2010 for appearance of the petitioner on 14.08.2010 at Panchayat Bhawan.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9020 of 2019 dt.15-02-2024 4/8
(Sighari), Kochcdhawan.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9020 of 2019 dt.15-02-2024 5/8
allowed on 04.03.2013 by reasoned and speaking order.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9020 of 2019 dt.15-02-2024 6/8
Kishanganj on 29.08.2017. He further submits that in view of the aforesaid liberty the respondent no. 10 preferred an appeal vide Appeal No. 400 of 2017 before the State Appellate Authority, Bihar, Patna, which was heard and allowed the same on 08.03.2019 and directed the panchayat employment unit, Haldikhore to reinstate the appellant on the post of Panchayat Teacher after cancellation of the employment of the petitioner.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9020 of 2019 dt.15-02-2024 7/8
that the District Appellate Authority has relied on secondary collateral evidences regarding participation of candidates in the counselling, instead of relying on the counselling register, in contravention of the direction given by the Hon’ble High Court in its order dated 01.10.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 18394 of 2011.
“ If counselling was fixed on 14.08.2010 and the petitioner claims to have participated and signed the counselling register, the best evidence with regard to whether respondent no. 10 had participated or not was the counselling register itself. If it contained her signature no further issues would arise. If it did not contain her signature but did contain the signature of the petitioner and any other who appeared on that date, the onus would lie on the respondent no. 10 to demonstrate
Patna High Court CWJC No.9020 of 2019 dt.15-02-2024 8/8
in what manner she was present and in what manner counselling was denied to her even while others were counselled on 14.08.2010. No such evidence was placed before the Tribunal.
It is peculiar that the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision on a question of fact on basis of materials outside the selection records. It did not consider it necessary to call for the primary and best evidence by way of the selection records.”
case and the fact that there is no illegality in the order passed by the State Appellate Authority, this Court finds no merit in the present writ petition and the same stands dismissed.
(Anjani Kumar Sharan, J)
anand/-
| AFR/NAFR | NAFR |
|---|---|
| CAV DATE | NA |
| Uploading Date | 22.02.2024 |
| Transmission Date | NA |
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the State Appellate Authority committed any illegality in allowing respondent No. 10's appeal and directing reinstatement after cancellation of petitioner's employment despite missing pages in
Whether the High Court observation regarding best evidence in the earlier disposition mandates reconsideration in the present writ petition.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
C.W.J.C. No. 18394 of 2011Referred¶47
Nirmala Kumari
Shama Naz Begum
The State of Bihar
The Director, Primary Education, Bihar
The Education Officer, Kishanganj
The District Programme Officer, Kishanganj
Anjani Kumar Sharan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
