IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.9695 of 2010
1. SATRUGHAN KUMAR, S/O SRI RAM NARESH
MAHTO, R/O VILLAGE BANDWAR , BRAHAMPURA
TOLA, P.S. NIMA CHANDPURA, DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI
(BIHAR).
Versus
1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY
CUM COMMISSIONER, DEPARTMENT OF HUMAN
RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,GOVT. OF BIHAR,PATNA.
2. THE DIRECTOR ,PRIMARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF
BIHAR, PATNA.
3. THE DEPUTY SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF
HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT,GOVT. OF
BIHAR,PATNA.
4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE,BEGUSARAI.
5. THE DISTRICT TEACHERS APPOINTMENT
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BEGUSARAI.
6. THE MEMBER,THE DISTRICT TEACHERS
APPOINTMENT APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,BEGUSARAI.
7. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF
EDUCATION,BEGUSARAI.
8. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER,BEGUSARAI.
9. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION
OFFICER,BEGUSARAI. null null
10. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER,BEGUSARAI.
11. THE MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT RAJ, BANDWAR,
BEGUSARAI.
12. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY,GRAM PANCHAYAT
RAJ, BANDWAR, BEGUSARAI.
13. THE HEADMASTER, PRIMARY SCHOOL
,KUNJARTOLI, BANDWAR, BEGUSARAI.
14. MD.SUFIAN ALAM, S/O MD. SULTAN ALAM, R/O
VILLAGE BANDWAR, P.S. NIMA CHANDPURA,
DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI.
15. SUNIL KUMAR, S/O SRI GANGA PRASAD DAS, R/O
VILLAGE JINEDPUR, P.S. NIMA CHANDPURA,
DISTRICT- BEGUSARAI.
-----------
6 21/04/2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the private respondents and learned counsel
-2-
for the State.
A frontal attack was made on the reasoning given
by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate
Authority, Begusarai which is the impugned order
contained annexure 12 to this writ application that the
finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that addition
of vocational marks in the merit list is contrary to the
Circular and direction of the Human Resources
Development Department is erroneous per se. He
submits that there does not exist any circular of the kind
and, therefore, the direction issued by the Appellate
Authority to deduct such marks from the merit list and
thereby creating a fresh merit list based on which right
accrues in favour of Md. Sufyan is wrong.
A counter affidavit on behalf of the State has
been filed where a categorical statement has been made
that vocational marks or extra subject marks cannot be
added for creating merit list and on that account the
continuation of the petitioner, therefore, cannot be
sustained.
Next submission of the learned counsel for the
petitioner is that if a mistake has been made by the
-3-
Panchayat in preparation of the merit list in such a
fashion, then the entire panel is to be scrapped.
In this regard the Court can only record that the
issue of appointment of the petitioner on the post at the
cost of other persons having more marks but having
been denied the benefit because of wrong addition of
marks in favour of the petitioner, contrary to the
direction of the Ministry of Human Resources
Development Department, if on re-working on deduction
of vocational marks, the petitioner does not remain in the
merit list on the basis of which he has got appointment,
he has no right to remain on that post. To that extent, the
Appellate Authority has not committed any error and the
challenge made by the petitioner seems to be misplaced,
not based on actual state of affair.
This writ application, therefore, is dismissed as
no illegality as such emerges from the reasoning given by
the Appellate Authority.
AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)