IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.17456 of 2010
Lokesh Kumar Dubey, S/o-Late Dhruv Narayan Dubey, R/o-Village-
Panjwar, Post-Panjwar, P.S.-Raghunatupur, District-Siwan.
-Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar through Director Human Resource Department
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Commissioner-cum-Secretary, Human Resource Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan.
5. The Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur Block, Siwan.
6. The Block Extension Officer, Raghunathpur Block, Siwan.
7. The Mukhiya, Panchayat Raj Panjwar, P.O.-Panjwar, P.S.-
Raghunathpur, District-Siwan.
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Panchayat Raj Panjwar, P.O.-Panjwar, P.S.-
Raghunathpur, District-Siwan.
9. The Member District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal,
Siwan. -Respondents.
WITH
CWJC No.14472 of 2010
Ram Niwash Tiwari, S/o- Shri Bidaya Bhushan Tiwari, R/o- Vill.-
Raghunathpur, P.O.+P.S.- RaghunathpuR, Distt.- Siwan, Bihar.
-Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar through Education Secretary Education
Government of Bihar.
2. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Siwan.
4. The Block Education Extension Officer, Raghunathpur Block, Distt.-
Siwan.
5. The Block Development Officer, Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan.
6. Gopal Singh, S/o- Ramekabal Singh, Mukhiya, Gram Panjawar,
Block- P.S. Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan.
7. The Secretary, Panjawar Panchayat Block- Raghunathpur, Distt.-
Siwan.
8. Devendra Pathak (Teacher) Kashturva Girl High School, Panjawar,
P.S.- Raghunathpur, Distt.- Siwan.
9. Lokesh Kumar Dubey, S/o- Late Shri Dhurv Narain Dubey R/o- Vill.-
Panjawar, P.O. Panjawar, P.S.- RaghunathpuR, Distt.- Siwan, at
present R/o Rajeev Nagar, Road No. 17, P.O. Keshari, P.S. Digha,
Distt.- Patna. -Respondents.
-----------
(In C.W.J.C. No.17456 of 2010)
For the Petitioner :M/s- Tej Bahadur Singh, Sr. Adv., Sunil Singh,
& Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocates.
For the State : Mr. Abhitabh Kumar, AC to GP-IX.
For the Respondent No.7 : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Adv.
-2-
(In C.W.J.C. No.14472 of 2010)
For the Petitioner : Mr. Chandra Kant, Adv.
For the State : AC to SC-19.
For the Respondent No.9: Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Adv.
————
02 15.11.2010 In both these two writ petitions the issues are
interlinked. In C.W.J.C. No.17456 of 2010 one Lokesh Kumar Dubey
is the petitioner and he seeks implementation of the order of the
District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Siwan dated
14/17 August, 2010 as passed in Case No.89 of 2010. By the said
order, the Tribunal has inter alia held that upon challenge by the
petitioner, Lokesh Kumar Dubey the services of inter alia Sri Ram
Niwash Tiwari, Panchayat Teacher should be terminated. Lokesh
Kumar Dubey seeks enforcement of this order and challenges the
action of the District Superintendent of Education by which he has
stayed the implementation of the order of the Tribunal.
The second writ petition, being C.W.J.C. No.14472 of
2010, has been filed by Ram Niwash Tiwari challenging the same
very order of the Tribunal, being order dated 14/17 August, 2010, as
passed in Case No.89 of 2010, by the District Teachers Appointment
Appellate Authority, Siwan. In the said writ petition Lokesh Kumar
Dubey is respondent no.9 and has appeared.
Supplementary affidavits/counter affidavits and
rejoinders have been filed. All parties including the Mukhiya of the
concerned Gram Panchayat have appeared. In my view, the two
interlinked issues are involved and, as such, with consent of parties the
two writ petitions have been heard for final disposal at this stage itself.
-3-
The first issue would be whether the District
Superintendent of Education has any authority to sit in appeal over the
order of the Appellate Tribunal. The second issue is whether the order
of the Tribunal is correct or not. If the order of the Tribunal is correct
then it is required to be enforced by this Court in terms of the decision
of the Apex Court in the case of Bhopal Sugar Industries Limited
Versus Income Tax Officer, Bhopal since reported in 1961 Supreme
Court 182.
In my view, so far as the first question about authority
of District Superintendent of Education is concerned, this question
have been settled by this Court several times. The power to adjudicate
such disputes has been conferred on the Appellate Tribunal by Rule-18
of the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service
Conditions) Rules, 2006. Those Rules read as a whole make the
Tribunal ultimate authority to decide the disputes. The Rules do not
provide that the Tribunal is subject to superintendence by any
authority of the State. Thus, the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is final
and no authority of the State can sit over it in any manner, to the
contrary, they are bound to implement the same. Another aspect is
that the Tribunal exercises quasi judicial functions. It is established
principle that once a quasi judicial authority has applied its mind and
given a decision, which is statutory decision, then no member of the
executive in exercise of his executive power can be permitted to
disregard and/or interfere with the said order unless there be valid
statutory provision in that regards. I may also refer in this connection
-4-
to the Government Notification No.3716 dated 23.10.2008, issued by
the Department of Human Resource Development, notified by the
orders of the Governor and issued under the signature of Principal
Secretary to the Government. This notification was issued consequent
to the establishment of the Tribunal wherein the procedures, powers
and functions of the Tribunal have been notified by the State
Government. In this notification in Clause-Kha (15) State
Government has clearly stipulated that from the decision of the
Tribunal there shall be no appeal before any authority, meaning
thereby, that the order of the Tribunal is final. Thus, seen the District
Superintendent of Education had no authority to stay and/or in any
manner interfere with the order of the Tribunal, however, he may
have dislike or disapprove the order of the Tribunal. Thus, this
question is answered in favour of the writ petitioner, Lokesh Kumar
Dubey.
So far as the second issue is concerned about the
validity of the order of the Tribunal, one must refer to the order of the
Tribunal and the principal facts as noticed by it. From the perusal of
the impugned order of the Tribunal, it appears that upon an application
filed by Lokesh Kumar Dubey, the Tribunal entertained challenge as
against selection of three persons as Panchayat Teachers. They were
Murari Singh, Ram Niwas Tiwari (contesting party) and Vinod Kumar
Yadav. All three were noticed by the Tribunal and heard. So far as
Vinod Kumar Yadav is concerned, upon enquiry from the Bihar
School Examination Board, it was conclusively found that the marks
-5-
sheet submitted by him was forged and fabricated and, as such, the
Tribunal ordered cancellation of his appointment. In neither of the
writ petitions that finding is challenged. So far as Murari Singh is
concerned, the Tribunal has recorded that he was appointed in place of
trained teacher. The Tribunal has also noticed that repeated notices
were sent to him and upon appearance he was given opportunity to
produce certificate of training, which he failed to produce inspite of
opportunity given and, as such, drew adverse inference against him.
On that count and then treating him to be untrained, the Tribunal
cancelled his appointment. This finding is not under challenge before
this Court. When it came to the case of Ram Niwas Tiwari, the
Tribunal noted that the Bihar School Examination Board certified the
marks sheet to be correct. The Tribunal did not find any fault in his
appointment but upon an application filed by Lokesh Kumar Dubey,
as apparent from the order of the Tribunal and on affidavit that he was
wrongly shown absent in the counselling, the Tribunal accepted the
affidavit without any further enquiry and held that he had been
wrongly left out of consideration. That being so, the Tribunal found
that he had 631 marks in Intermediate as against Ram Niwas Tiwary
who had 618 marks and, as such, the Tribunal ordered removal of Sri
Ram Niwas Tiwari and appointment of Lokesh Kumar Dubey in place
of Sri Ram Niwas Tiwari. Sri Ram Niwas Tiwari has challenged this
part of the finding of the Tribunal as in favour of Lokesh Kumar
Dubey.
On behalf of the Ram Niwas Tiwari, it is submitted that
-6-
the selection process was carried out in the year 2006, appointments
were made in the year 2007 and petitioner, Lokesh Kumar Dubey was
shown absent in counseling. The appointment was then challenged
before this Court and subsequently before the Tribunal. From the
order of the Tribunal, it is submitted that Tribunal has not referred to
the records of the selection process but merely relied on the affidavit
filed by Lokesh Kumar Dubey.
On behalf of Lokesh Kumar Dubey, it is submitted that
the Tribunal has called for the records of the entire selection process
and had perused the same and then relied upon the affidavit as filed by
him.
In my view, it must be remembered that the Tribunal is
exercising quasi judicial functions and its orders are the orders at the
first and the final instance and is subject to judicial review only by this
Court. Thus, the order has to be a self-speaking and self-supporting
order. Having perused the order, I do not find even a whisper on the
records much less any finding in respect thereof in a slip shod manner.
The Tribunal has referred to the affidavit and held that the selecting
authorities in order to hide their misdeeds had shown the petitioner,
Lokesh Kumar Dubey absent. How the Tribunal came to this finding
and what are the facts in support thereof has not even been noticed
much less discussed.
Having considered the matter, in my view, these are
sufficient grounds for setting aside the order of the Tribunal in so far
as the Sri Ram Niwas Tiwari is concerned. The order of the Tribunal
-7-
is, accordingly, set aside to the limited extent as it operates against Sri
Ram Niwas Tiwari and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal for
fresh consideration after due notice to the parties and upon perusal and
consideration of the records in detail. The Tribunal would endeavour
to conclude the proceedings within a period of six weeks from the date
of production of a copy of this order before the Tribunal.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, both the
writ petitions are disposed of.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)