High Court Patna High Court - Orders

Laxman Paswan vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 December, 2010

Patna High Court – Orders
Laxman Paswan vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 13 December, 2010
                    IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                   CWJC No.3043 of 2010
                   LAXMAN PASWAN S/O LATE MUNNI PASWAN R/O VILL
                   JALWARA, P.S.KEOTI, DISTT-DARBHANGA.
                                              Versus
                   1. THE STATE OF BIHAR.
                   2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE DARBHANGA.
                   3. THE DISTRICT SUPRINTENDENT OF EDUCATION
                   DARBHANGA.
                   4. THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER-CUM-DY. DISTRICT
                   SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, DARBHANGA.
                   5. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER SADAR,DISTT-
                   DARBHANGA.
                   6.      PANCHAYAT         SECRETARY        JALWARA
                   PANCHAYAT,P.S.KEOTI,DISTT-DARBHANGA.
                   7. MUKHIYA       JALWARA PANCHAYAT ,P.S.KEOTI,DISTT-
                   DARBHANGA.
                   8. MADAN KUMAR S/O SHIV NANDAN MAHTO R/O VILL
                   JALWARA,P.S.KEOTI,DISTT-DARBHANGA.
                   9. DISTRICT PRIMARY TEACHERS APPOINTMENT AUTHORITY
                   THROUGH ITS MEMBER DARBHANGA.
                                          -----------

02. 13.12.2010 Failure of the petitioner to demonstrate before this Court

any policy or law which bars appointment of a person more so as a

Shiksha Mitra merely because of pendency of a criminal case does not

help the petitioner in any manner to dislodge respondent No.8 from the

post in question. Pendency of a criminal case by itself may not be

enough to prevent such appointment but if such a person is convicted

by a court of law the necessary corollary will follow.

Despite indulgence shown to the petitioner he has not been

able to satisfy this Court by producing any policy or law and in that

view of the matter the Court has no option but to dismiss the writ

application.

The new contention that respondent No.8 has found

engagement or employment as a Shiksha Mitra is another issue. If

respondent No.8 does not want to continue on the post of teacher in
2

question, then it is left to the authorities to decide what they would like

to consider with regard to the vacancy and this ground may not be a

good ground to set aside the selection or appointment of respondent

No.8.

The writ has no merit. It is dismissed.

rkp                             ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)