IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No 17340 of 2010
Anju Kumari, wife of Sri Ramesh Kumar Yadav and daughter of Sri
Gajendra Yadav, resident of village - Ekdara, P S - Khajauli, District
- Madhubani - Petitioner
Versus
1 The State of Bihar
2 The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development,
Government of Bihar, Patna
3 The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Balbhadrapur,
Laheriya Sarai, Darbhanga
4 The District Collector, Darbhanga
5 The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Co-
ordinator, Sarba Shiksha Abhiyan, Darbhanga
6 The Block Development Officer, Jaley, Post - Jaley, District - Darbhanga
7 The Block Education Extension Officer, Jaley, P S - Jaley, District -
Darbhanga
8 The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Rarhi Purvi, Post - Kamtaul, P S -
Kamtaul, District - Darbhanga
9 The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rarhi Purvi, Post - Kamtaul,
District - Darbhanga
10 Ranju Kumari, wife of Sri Lakshman Sahu, resident of Mohalla - Lakshmi
Sagar, Post - Lakshmi Sagar, P S - Sadar, District - Darbhanga
- Respondents
***
For the petitioner : Mr Tej Bahadue Singh, Sr Advocate
With Dr Mrityunjaya Kr Gautam, Advocate
For the S t a t e : Mr A C to A A G – II
***
2 10.11.2010 The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 06.09.2010
passed in Case No 724 of 2009 by the District Teachers Appointment
Appellate Authority, Darbhanga. The said appeal was filed by Ranju
Devi (Respondent No 10) challenging the selection of petitioner as
Panchayat Teacher. The Tribunal, after notice to the petitioner and after
perusing the records, allowed the appeal and has directed that the services
of petitioner should be terminated and instead respondent No 10, who has
much better academic record and was much above in the merit list, be
2
taken in. Mr Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel in support of the
writ petition has raised two issues. Firstly, he submits that a selection that
was done in the year 2006 could not have been challenged before the
Tribunal in the year, 2009 in view of the judgment of this Court since
reported in the case of Alok Kumar and Others -Versus- State of Bihar
and Others, 2009 (2) PLJR 929. He secondly submitted that in view of
the fact that respondent No 10 was not found present in the counselling
that was held on 18.12.2006 and the Selection Committee having decided
to accept the recommendations pursuant to counselling on 18.12.2006,
respondent No 10 would not have raised any grievance. Having
considered the matter, in my view, both the submissions cannot be
sustained and are misconceived in fact and in law.
So far as the first question about delay is concerned, one has
to notice the facts before the principles laid down in a judgment are
applied. The facts of this case are noted in the very opening paragraph of
the Tribunal. The Tribunal has noted that applicant before it (Respondent
No 10 herein) had first moved the High Court in CWJC No 10112 of
2008. That was disposed of on 14.12.2009. Shri Singh, learned Senior
Counsel was fair enough to produce the order of this Court. That order
clearly directed the writ petitioner therein (Respondent No 10 herein) to
file application before the Tribunal within 30 days with a further direction
to the Tribunal to decide the matter on merits. It is not in dispute that this
application was filed much within the period of 30 days before the
Tribunal and, thus, the Tribunal was obliged to decide the same on merit.
The Tribunal having decided pursuant to directions of this Court the
3
judgment, as relied on by Shri Singh, would not apply.
Now coming to the second aspect of the matter. From the
order of the Tribunal, it is clear that first the counselling was fixed for 16th
and 17th of October, 2006. This fact is not in dispute. What is in dispute
is this counselling was improperly called meaning thereby that not all
Members of Selection Committee were notified. In my view, that makes
little difference. When all applicants were present that is apart from
others petitioner and respondent No 10, they were all present. After the
counselling was over, it appears suddenly, on 18.12.2006, the Selection
Committee decided to hold counselling once again and on that day, not
only the notice was put up but immediately counselling held and
candidates selected. Obviously, their being no prior notice, several
persons did not turn up. Respondent No 10, who had no information of
the second counselling, could not turn up and showing her absent, the
petitioner was selected. Here, it may be noted that respondent No 10 had
67 points in the merit list whereas petitioner had only 57 points. On these
findings of fact, the Tribunal set aside petitioner’s selection. In my view,
no exception can be taken to the decision of the Tribunal.
Mr Singh tried to persuade the Court that it was
subsequently in the meeting of March, 2007 that the Selection Committee
decided to accept the counselling of 18.12.2006 as the correct counselling
and acted upon it. In my view, that decision was a wrong decision for the
simple reason that counselling having concluded on 16th and 17th of
October 2006, no candidate was noticed of recounselling on 18.12.2006.
Suddenly on 18.12.2006, the Committee decides to hold recounselling,
4
puts up the notice and completes the counselling. That is not how a
public body is to function. That counselling was void. It cannot be said
that except a handful, all others were duly notified as to the validity of the
first two counsellings that is on 16th and 17th of October, 2010. Again, in
my view, it makes little difference as to who is present for counselling. If
we keep in mind the purpose of counselling, the purpose of counselling is
only verification of testimonials. It is not any interview or any test of any
sort. No candidate is prejudiced by one or the other Member being
absent.
In that view of the matter, I find no merit in this writ
application. It is, accordingly, dismissed.
M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)