Posted On by &filed under High Court, Patna High Court - Orders.


Patna High Court – Orders
Archna Kumari &Amp; Anr vs The State Of Bihar &Amp; Ors on 20 July, 2010
                     IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                                      CWJC No.2466 of 2010
                  1. ARCHNA KUMARI D/o Shri Anjani Kumar Srivastava of
                     Village- Deokulia, Panchayat- Mankarwa, P.S.-Fenhara,
                     District-East Champaran
                  2. Israt Perveen W/o Md. Amjad Hussain of Village-Deokulia,
                     Panchayat-Mankarwa, P.S.-Fenhara, District- East
                     Champaran.
                                                          ------------Petitioners
                                           Versus
                 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR
                 2. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Mankarwa,
                    P.S. Fenhara, Dist-East Champaran
                 3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran at Motihari
                 4. The Block Development Officer, Fenhara, East Champaran
                 5. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, East
                    Champaran
                 6. Rajiv Kumar S/o Subhash Prasad Village-Deokulia Block-
                    Fenhara, P.S. Fenhara, District-East Champaran.
                                                   ------------Respondents

                                             -----------

For the Petitioners :- Mr. Yogesh Chandra Verma, Sr. Adv.
For Respondent No. 6:- Mr. Dilip Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, Adv.

                 For the State:-           SC-I
                                        ----------------

4.   20.7.2010                   Petitioners   challenge    the    order    dated

23.1.2010 of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate,

Tribunal East Champaran in Case No. 564 of 2009 where

her appointment as Shiksha Mitra as made in 2005 has

been set aside.

Heard the parties.

The private respondent no. 6 has appeared

and filed an application vide I.A. No. 3568 of 2010 for

vacating the interim order of stay. In my view there is no

need for keeping the writ petition pending with consent of

parties it is heard for disposal at this stage itself.
2

Petitioners were selected as a Shiksha Mitra in the year

2005.

Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. Yogesh Chandra

Verma appearing for the petitioners submit that the

tribunal was moved for the first time in the year 2009 by

respondent no. 6. Thus his initial appointment was not

challenged within 30 days in view of the judgment of this

Court in the case of Alok Kumar & Ors. Vs. The State of

Bihar & Ors. reported in 2009 (2) PLJR 929, this Court

should hold that the tribunal acted without jurisdiction to

entertain a complaint.

I regret that the said decision is not applicable

in the facts of the case. It is not in dispute that on

petitioners’ selection respondent no. 6 had immediately

protested before the Block Development Officer who was

the competent authority to entertain the complaint. When

the Block Development Officer did not take any action, the

petitioner immediately moved the Collector who directed

enquiry by the Block Development Officer. The Block

Development Officer enquired into the matter and

submitted report that selection of petitioners were wrong

and further that respondent no. 6 was wrongly left out.

The Block Development Officer then became the statutory

authority in terms of Rule 18 of the Bihar Primary

Panchyat Teachers (Service Condition and Appointment)
3

Rules, 2006. He was then asked to take action himself

but before he could take action Rule 18 was amended and

the power was given to the Bihar Teachers Appointment

Appellate Tribunal. As a consequence of which the matter

reached the tribunal in the year 2009. The tribunal has

concurred with the findings of the Block Development

Officer.

Having perused the order, I have no reason to

take a different view of the matter. Admittedly in

appointment of petitioners, the roster was not adhered to

and ignoring the same rest of the appointments were

made. If rules would have been adhered to it would be

respondent no. 6 who would have been appointed. Thus,

clearly the appointment of petitioners were wrong and

illegal. But merely because that was done without

adhering to the roster clearance etc. the respondent no.

6 cannot be made to join at this late stage after five years.

The post must be re-advertised and filled up in

accordance with law as now vacancy arises. This should

be done within two months.

The writ application stands disposed of.

Anand Kr. ( Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

* Copy This Password *

* Type Or Paste Password Here *

8 queries in 0.133 seconds.