IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.329 of 2008
THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS
Versus
AMAR KUMAR & ANR
-----------
For the Appellants : Mr. Rajesh Kumar II, GP 19
For the Respondent : Mr. Manoj Kr. Sinha, Advocate
—————
PRESENT
Hon’ble the Chief Justice
&
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal
———-
Dated, the 4th July, 2008.
Re: I.A. No. 2257 of 2008
Appeal suffers from delay of 104 days and for condonation
thereof, an application (I.A. No. 2557 of 2008) has been made. Even
if we condone the delay, we are of the view that the appeal has no
merit and it does not deserve to be admitted.
2. If the argument of the counsel for the State is accepted,
it would amount to putting premium to a forgery committed by Navin
Kumar. The state counsel does not dispute that the selection of Navin
Kumar on 6.10.2005 was bad in law as he had produced forged
certificate. If that be so, merely because when the Panchayat Teachers
Appointment Rule came into effect on 1.7.2006 and Navin Kumar
was continuing in service because of his illegal appointment, he could
not have been absorbed. Rather, the present respondent no. 1 (original
-2-
writ petitioner) who had secured higher marks in selection process
and who was already appointed earlier, ought to have been continued
and would be deemed to have continued from the date he was
initially appointed.
3. The Single Judge considered the matter thus:
“I find that the stand taken by the respondents in the
counter affidavit is arbitrary and erroneous. The
petitioner was selected and his joining was accepted. He
was relieved for training. In the meantime on the basis of
forged certificate some one opposed his selection and
without any enquiry petitioner’s selection was cancelled.
In petitioner’s place one Navin Kumar was selected.
Subsequently on verification it was found that the marks
obtained by him was forged. This was found much before
the coming of the new Panchayat Teachers Appointment
Rule. Selection of Navin Kumar was cancelled on
6.10.2005. On such cancellation the petitioner could have
been asked to re-join on the post of Panchayat Shiksha
Mitra but the respondents kept the matter pending for
eight months. The Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rule
came on 1.7.2006. The stand which has been taken by the
respondents cannot be accepted as genuine valid and
applicable in the case of the petitioner.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case the
petitioner should be deemed to be continuing on the post
of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra right from 13.7.2005 i.e. the
date of his joining, till the date Navin Kumar was allowed
to join on the post.”
4. The consideration of the matter by the Single Judge
-3-
cannot be faulted. L.P.A. has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
5. This disposes of I.A. No. 2558 of 2008 as well.
R. M. Lodha, CJ
Kishore K. Mandal, J
Anil/