IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.5921 of 2008
SHAHZADI KHATOON
With
CWJC No.5927 of 2008
MD.MANIRUL HASSAN
With
CWJC No.6075 of 2008
SAHANA KHATOON
Versus
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
-----------
4/ 11/7/2008. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned
counsel for the State and for the interveners.
In so far as the intervener is concerned, any grievance
with regard to the termination of the services of the intervener has to
be the subject matter of a separate writ application and cannot be
considered presently.
These three matters relate to the appointment on the
post of Block Teacher. The petitioners were not selected. On a
representation by them, the statutory authority, the Deputy
Development Commissioner, Katihar, under Rule-19 of the Bihar
Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions)
Rules, 2006 has passed orders which are presently the subject matter
for consideration.
In so far as the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.6075/08 is
concerned, the order of the statutory authority states that she had been
appointed as a Panchayat Teacher in the Naya Tola, Bara
Raghunathpur and that she had not participated for counseling for
appointment on the post of Block Teahcer which is the cause of action
in the present writ application. In the writ application this factual
-2-
aspect has not been controverted. There is no merit in
C.W.J.C.No.6075/08 which is accordingly rejected.
The order of the statutory authority with regard to the
petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.5927/08 states that public notice was
published for counseling. The statutory authority then arrived at its
conclusion that there was no occasion for the petitioner not to
participate in the counseling.
There appears no logic to conclude that there was no
reason why the petitioner would not have participated in the
counseling to presume his not having been informed of the date when
the petitioner has vaguely asserted that he was prevented from
attending the counseling. His representation in that regard, annexure-
1, has been perused by the Court which is vague and leaves the court
thoroughly dissatisfied on the controversy whether the petitioner had
participated in the counseling or not and therefore no relief can be
granted to the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.5927/08. It is accordingly
dismissed.
In C.W.J.C. No.5921/08 the order of the statutory
authority states that the petitioner participated in the counseling when
it was found that she had higher marks than the person appointed and,
thus, the order of termination of the illegal appointee, but denying
appointment to the petitioner in view of a fresh Government ban on
appointments under the second phase.
A counter affidavit has been filed today affirmed by the
Deputy Superintendent of Education, Katihar. Paragraph-7 of the
-3-
same emphatically states that the petitioner did not participate in the
counseling which has been reiterated in paragraph-8. The statement
made in the counter affidavit is in direct conflict with the finding
recorded in the order of the statutory authority. Quite obviously, either
the recital in the impugned order is incorrect or that on oath in the
counter affidavit is incorrect. Either ways, it is a very serious matter
going beyond a simple issue of administration.
This Court requires the Secretary-Commissioner,
Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, to
examine the matter himself after calling for the original records. This
Court next directs the Secretary-cum-Commissioner to take
appropriate departmental action as also prosecution under the criminal
law with regard to the falsity of statements by either one of them.
Let the same be done by the Secretary-cum-
Commissioner within a maximum period of eight weeks from the date
of receipt/production of a copy of this order before him and
consequential action against the concerned delinquent be initiated
within four weeks thereafter.
Let an affidavit of compliance be filed by the
Secretary-cum-Commissioner after 12 weeks when the matter shall be
listed for perusal by the Court.
In view of the finding of illegalities in the
appointments, by the statutory authority, quite naturally consequential
action to give effect to the same has to be taken forthwith, if not
already taken.
-4-
Before parting with the matter, this Court considers it
appropriate to observe that in the event that the Secretary-cum-
Commissioner arrives at a finding of the petitioner in C.W.J.C.
No.5921 of 2008 having participated in the counseling, then, in view
of the finding that she was wrongly denied appointment, the petitioner
shall be entitled to be considered for appointment on the post to which
she was entitled at the original date when the same was denied to her
and any subsequent decision of the Government cannot come in the
way in view of the available vacancy because of the removal of the
person wrongly appointed.
C.W.J.C. No.5921/08 stands disposed.
KC ( Navin Sinha,J )