IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.15882 of 2010
HIRALAL RAM s/o Shri Sudarshan Ram, resident of village-
Saichani, P.O. Dighwalia, P.S. - Raghunathpur, District- Siwan, at
present posted and working as Panchayat Teacher in Govt. Primary
School Majilasa, Anchal- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
4. The Divisional Commissioner, Saran Division at Chapra.
5.The District Magistrate, Siwan.
6. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum- Chairman, District
Education Establishment Committee, Siwan.
7. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan.
8. The Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
9. The Block Education Officer, Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
10. The Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Dighwalia, Block-
Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
11.The Panchayat Secretary of Gram Panchayat Raj Dighwalia,
Block- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
12. The Headmaster, Govt. Primary School Majilasa, Anchal
Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
13.The Member, District Teacher's Employment Appellate Authority,
Siwan.
14. Shri Sugreev Ram s/o Shri Rajnath Ram, resident of village &
P.O. Dighwalia, P.s.- Raghunathpur, District- Siwan.
-----------
For the Petitioner : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra
For the State : S.C. 13
2 9.11.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 29.7.2010
passed in Case no. 15 of 2010 by the District Teachers Appointment
Appellate Authority, Siwan. The impugned order is contained in
Annexure 15 to the writ petition.
The matter relates to the appointment of Shiksha Mitra in
the year 2003. It appears that respondent no. 14, Shri Sugreev Ram,
filed an application before the tribunal in the year 2010 complaining
that the petitioner’s selection , as Shiksha Mitra , has done in the year
-2-
2003 was based upon a forged mark sheet of matriculation
examination. He had higher marks. From the order of the tribunal it
appears that the tribunal made an enquiry about the authenticity of the
mark sheet, as given by the petitioner , to be correct. It also made
enquiry from the two schools in which the petitioner had studied and
the Principal reverted stating that the mark sheet was not correct. On
basis thereof the tribunal held that the marks that were obtained by the
petitioner cannot be relied upon.
It may be noted here that the petitioner himself has
annexed the mark sheet, as Annexure 1 to the writ petition, which shows
his aggregate marks in matriculation was 442 and not 633.It would now
depend as to what is mark that was used for making the selection of the
petitioner. If petitioner’s selection was on basis of marks in
matriculation being 663, it would obviously be on basis of an incorrect
mark sheet because the petitioner himself in this writ petition does not
accept that as the correct marks.
On the other hand, if it has been worked out on basis of
442 marks in matriculation that would be a different matter. Thus, I set
aside the order of the tribunal and remand the matter to the tribunal for
fresh consideration. The tribunal would call upon the authority to
furnish the merit list and then see from that merit list as to what mark
has been used to calculate the relative merit and then take a decision
afresh in the matter after hearing the parties. The tribunal would take a
decision in the matter within one month from the date of production of a
copy of this order before the tribunal and that order would then
-3-
supersede the impugned order of the tribunal.
On behalf of petitioner it has been urged that in respect of
selection of the year 2003, no challenge could be entertained in the year
2010. Reliance in this regard has been placed on a decision of this
Court in the case of Alok Kumar -v- The State of Bihar & ors since
reported in 2009(2) PLJR 929. In my view, this is not a case where the
question of relative merit is concerned, it is a case of having obtained
appointment on basis of a forged document, which is an inherent wrong
giving no right to the appointee to continue, if it is so found.
With the aforesaid observations and direction, the writ
petition is disposed of.
singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)