IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.16027 of 2010
Bishwajit Kumar, Son of Shri Jay Narayan Kumar, resident of Village-
Dhakjari, P.O.-Dhakjari (Bharouli), P.S.-Sonbarsa Kachahari, Saharsa.
-Petitioner.
VERSUS
1. The State of Bihar through the Director Primary Education, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
2. The District Magistrate, Saharsa.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa.
4. The Block Development Officer, Mahishi (Saharsa).
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Rajanpur (Mahishi).
6. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Ranjanpur (Mahishi), Saharsa.
-Respondents.
-----------
02 04.11.2010 It appears that the petitioner had applied for
appointment as a Primary Panchayat Teacher under Backward
category. On the merit list being drawn up, he was shown as
no.1 in the Backward category having the highest marks. He
was selected for appointment but while making appointment
in the roaster he was placed in the place of General category
obviously to make place for someone else in the Backward
category. There were some persons of General category who
were not appointed though they were in the merit list above
the petitioner. He complained to the Lokayukt. The
Lokayukt asked the District Teachers Employment Appellate
Authority, Saharasa to enquire into the matter and submit a
report. It appears that pursuant to those reports and
communications from the Lokayukt petitioner is sought to be
disturbed.
Petitioner submits that he cannot be disturbed,
-2-
at best he will be placed in Backward category and, being first
in the merit list in that category, the person lowest in merit list
in Backward category, who has been appointed, will have to
be dismissed. Apportionment of category in the roaster or
place in the roaster is not petitioner’s responsibility. In such a
situation, petitioner cannot be disturbed much less by the
District Magistrate who under the Bihar Primary Panchayat
Teachers (Appointment & Service Conditions) Rules, 2006
has no authority.
In my view, on petitioner’s own showing the
matter is receiving attention of the District Teachers
Employment Appellate Authority, Saharsa. Petitioner admits
that he has received the notice and appeared before the
Appellate Authority. It would only be appropriate that
petitioner challenges the order or direction as issued by the
Collector or any step taken to disestablish the appointment of
petitioner before the Appellate Authority as an independent
appeal. It is needless to say that the Appellate Authority
would decide the issue expeditiously as it is already in seisin
of the matter though under directions of the Lokayukt
Appellate Authority would keep in mind that it is an
independent statutory functionary under Rule-18 of the Bihar
Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment & Service
Conditions) Rules, 2006 and cannot be dictated except by
law.
-3-
In view of the facts, as noticed above, it would
be seen that petitioner, prima facie, cannot be disturbed and
that position must be maintained till final orders are passed by
the Appellate Authority provided petitioner moves the
Appellate Authority within three weeks from today and the
Appellate Authority decides the matter after notice to all
concerned parties including the parties likely to be affected by
its decision within a period of two months thereafter.
With these observations, the writ petition
stands disposed of.
Trivedi/ (Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.)