IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3145 of 2011
Dezy Kumari, wife of Naveen Kumar Thakur, resident of
village- Hanuman Nagar, Police Station- Sursand, District-
Sitamarhi, presently posted as Panchayat Teacher Govt.
Primary School Parigama, Police Station- Pupri, District-
Sitamarhi................... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Human
Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi.
4. The Block Educatioin Extension Officer, Pupari Choraut.
5. The Gram Panchayat Raj, Parigama, P.S. Pupari, District-
Sitamarhi through its Mukhiya.
6. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Parigama, P.S.Pupari,
District- Sitamarhi.
7. The Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Raj, Parigama,
Police Station-Pupari, District-Sitamarhi.
8. Nitu Kumari, wife of Sri Saket Bihari Singh, resident of
village-Bhantabari, P.S. Pupari, District-Sitamarhi.
9. Gunjan Kumari, daughter of Ajay Shankar Chaudhary,
resident of village-Barari Behata, P.S. Pupari, District-
Sitamarhi.............. Respondents.
----------------------------------
2. 18.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and
learned counsel for the State.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated
29.1.2011 passed by the District Teachers Employment
Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi in Case No. 98 of 2010, by
which the appeal filed by respondent No.9, Gunjan
Kumari, has been allowed and the appointment of the
petitioner has been cancelled and it has been directed to
2
appoint the respondent No.9 on the post of Panchayat
Teacher.
The petitioner along with others had applied
for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Out of
a total of seven posts, two were reserved for unreserved
Female Category, against which the petitioner as also
respondent No.9 along with others had applied. It is not in
dispute that respondent No.9 was higher on the merit list
but ultimately the petitioner was appointed against the
second post of unreserved Female Category. On learning
about the selection of the petitioner, respondent No.9
approached the respondent authorities and thereafter filed
a writ petition before this Court. The writ petition, being
C.W.J.C. No.5619/2008, was disposed of with liberty to
the petitioner to approach the Appellate Authority. On the
appeal so filed by respondent No.9, the impugned order
has been passed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner assails the
order of the Appellate Authority that no clear-cut finding
has been given as to whether the respondent No.9 was
present at the time of counseling or not and thus it was not
open to the Appellate Authority to cancel the appointment
3
of the petitioner and direct the appointment of respondent
No.9 merely on the ground that respondent No.9 had
higher marks than the petitioner. It is submitted that the
communication for appearing at the counseling was given
to all the candidates Under Certificate of Posting on the
basis of which the petitioner had appeared for counseling;
if the respondent No.9 had not taken any heed of the said
communication, then she was not entitled to be appointed.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other
hand, submits that the communication Under Certificate of
Posting is not a proper mode of communication and is
open to gross misuse unlike communication through
registered post with A/D. It is thus submitted by him that
the order of the Appellate Authority is not fit to be
interfered with as it has come to the conclusion that the
documents relating to the appointment process had not
been published as per the materials available on the
record.
On a consideration of the facts and
circumstances of the case and the submissions of learned
counsels for the petitioner and for the State, this Court is
of the view that any communication to appear at the
4
counseling under Certificate of Posting is not a reliable or
valid mode of communication and is open to grave
misuse. It is the admitted position that respondent No.9
had higher marks on the merit list and thus she was
entitled to proper communication for appearing at the
counseling. Admittedly, the same was not done by sending
a notice to appear under registered post with A/D, rather it
is claimed to have been sent Under Certificate of Posting.
In that view of the matter, this Court is of the
view that the communication for counseling was not sent
to the respondent No.9 under a valid mode
The aforesaid being the position, the
impugned order of the Appellate Authority is not fit to be
interfered with in the opinion of this Court, as it has
directed the appointment of a person having admittedly
more marks than the petitioner and who had not been
communicated about the date of counseling in a proper
manner.
The writ application, being devoid of merit, is
accordingly dismissed.
VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)