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.)
