IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15272 of 2009 ====================================================== 1. Rajesh Kumar S/O Ram Chandra Paswan Vill- Mohini Mandal, P.S. Mejarganj, Distt. Sitamarhi 2. Shramila Gupta D/O Sri Shashi Bhushan Gupta Vill- Station Road, Riga Mill Bazar, P.S. Riga, Distt. Sitamarhi 3. Roshan Naz D/O Md. Juned Ansari Vill- Mohini Mandal, P.S. Mejarganj, Distt. Sitamarhi 4. Nargis Ara D/O Md. Mahtab Alam Parwez Vill- Mohini Mandal, P.S. Mejarganj, Distt. Sitamarhi 5. Faiyaz Ahmed S/O Md. Mumtaz Ahmad Vill- Mohini Mandal, P.S. Mejarganj, Distt. Sitamarhi 6. Archana Kumari D/O Sri Khushihad Pd. Gupta Vill- Mohini Mandal, P.S. Mejarganj, Distt. Sitamarhi 7. Babita Kumari D/O Sri Awadesh Kumar Singh Vill+P.O. Marha, P.S. Mejarganj, Distt. Sitamarhi .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Human Resources Development Deptt., Bihar, Patna 2. The Director Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. The District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Through Its Member Sitamarhi, Distt. Sitamarhi 4. The District Superintendent Of Education Sitamarhi 5. The Block Development Officer Suppi Block, Distt. Sitamarhi 6. The Mukhiya Mohini Mandal Panchayat, Block- Suppi, Distt. Sitamarhi 7. The Panchayat Secretary Mohini Mandal Panchayat, Block- Suppi, Distt. Sitamarhi .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== With Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9405 of 2009 ====================================================== Vishwanath Jha, Son of Sri Babhunandan Jha, resident of Village and P.O. Gharwara, Block Suppi, P.S. Majorganj, District – Sitamarhi. .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi. 5. The District Panchayat Raj Officer, Sitamarhi. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi. 7. The Sub divisional Officer, Sitamarhi Sadar, Sitamarhi. 8. The Block Development Officer, Suppi, District – Sitamarhi. 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Suppi, District – Sitamarhi. 10. The Headmaster/Head Teacher/Govt. Primary School/Mohani Mandal Patna High Court CWJC No.15272 of 2009 (5) dt.14-10-2011 2 / 4 2 (Bishunji Tole), Block Suppi, District – Sitamarhi. 11. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Mohani Mandal, at and P.O. Mohani Mandal, Block Suppi, District – Sitamarhi. 12. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mohani Mandal, at & P.O. Mohani Mandal, Block Suppi, District –Sitamarhi. 13. Sri Shivji Mukhiya, Son of Ex-Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Mohani Mandal, resident of village & P.O. Mohani Mandal, Block – Suppi, P.S. Majorganj, District – Sitamarhi. 14. Sri Kailash Panjiyar, Son of name not known to the petitioner, Panchayat Secretary to the Gram Panchayat Mohani Mandal, presently posted at Belsara Block of District Sitamarhi, permanent resident of village –Berma, Block + P.S. Chorant, District – Sitamarhi. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.15272 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Advocate Mr. Md.Jubair Ansari, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awadhesh Kumar, AC to SC 17 (In CWJC No.9405 of 2009) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. S. Rahman, AC to GA 4. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 05/ 14-10-2011 Prayer of the petitioners in both the writ applications is for quashing of order contained in letter dated 01.06.2009 issued by the Mukhiya of Mohani Mandal Gram Panchayat, Block – Suppi, District – Sitamarhi, whereby appointment of these petitioners have been cancelled because the Mukhiya of concerned Gram Panchayat had made some complaint before the District Superintendent of Education, Sitamarhi that the Panchayat Secretary has made appointment of Panchayat Teacher without his consent. Impugned order has been challenged by the petitioners on Patna High Court CWJC No.15272 of 2009 (5) dt.14-10-2011 3 / 4 3 the ground that without issuing any show cause notice to them an enquiry is said to have been conducted by the Block Education Officer behind their back. The Block Education Extension Officer having no jurisdiction under 2006 Rules for entertaining any such complaints or making such enquiry. The so called enquiry report was not proper for taking any action against the petitioners and terminating their service, considering the fact that they had been appointed following due procedure as provided under 2006 Rules. Petitioners’ case is that in Mohani Mandal Gram Panchayat application were invited, all procedure as per 2006 were followed, all eight petitioners were appointed against the vacancy observing the reservation roaster. None of the unsuccessful applicant had raised any objection regarding the appointment of the petitioners. Petitioners were selected, appointed and they gave their joining. Without any notice they were handed over termination order by the Mukhiya, from which they came to know that they appointment is being considering as an illegal appointment. Notices had been issued to Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat, they have entered appearance but no counter affidavit has been filed neither their counsel is appearing in Court, when the matter was taken up. Even Patna High Court CWJC No.15272 of 2009 (5) dt.14-10-2011 4 / 4 4 no counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of State denying the specific allegation made by the petitioners regarding violation of rule of natural justice and the enquiry report being completely without jurisdiction. Since, there is no denial on the part of the respondents, and no other persons made any complaint against the appointment of petitioners, I find that the impugned order dated 1.6.2009 is illegally illegal and without jurisdiction, as such fit to be quashed. The impugned order is quashed. Petitioners are still continued on their post in view of the stay order passed by this Court, but as informed by the counsel for the petitioners by filing an interlocutory application that they are not being paid their salary. Respondents are directed to make payment of entire salary to the petitioners within eight weeks from the date of production/communication of this order. Both these applications are allowed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)