IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 11697 of 2009 Md. Azam Azad, son of Late Md. Usman Gani, resident of village – Tikodih, P.S. – Madurapura, P.S. – Kauwakol, District – Nawada ………………… Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 3. Project Director, Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan, Government of Bihar, Patna 4. The District Magistrate, Nawadah 5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawadah 6. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-District Program Coordinator, Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan, Government of Bihar, Patna 7. The Sub-divisional Education Officer, Nawadah 8. The Pramukh, Kauwakol Panchayat Samiti-cum-Chairman, Prakhand Shikshak Selection Committee, Kauwakol, Nawadah 9. The Block Education Extension Officer-cum-Secretary, Prakhand Shikshak Selection Committee, Kauwakol, Nawadah 10. The Block Development Officer, Kauwakol, Nawadah cum Member Selection Committee, Kauwakol, Nawadah, …………… Respondents ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner: Mr. Ashutosh Ranjan Pandey, Advocate Mr. Ramanuj Tiwary, Advocate For the State: Mr. P. K. Verma, AAG-5 *************** 04. 17.10.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. Petitioner’s prayer is for quashing the order contained in Memo No. 321, dated 21.12.2007, whereby his appointment as Urdu Prakhand Teacher has been cancelled on the ground that the panel prepared for appointment was erroneous. Petitioner was selected on wrong assessment of his mark-sheet, making interpolation in his mark-sheet, in order to improve his position in 2 the merit panel. Petitioner’s case is that out 100 posts, maximum number of posts were filled by trained candidates. Two panels were prepared, one for trained candidates and another panel was prepared for untrained candidate. So far panel prepared for trained candidates is concerned, the Respondents were of the view that no illegality / irregularity have been committed, as such appointment of trained candidates were not interfered with. Complaints were made with regard to preparation of merit panel for untrained candidates. Allegations were made that instead of one selection panel, two separate panels were prepared. Persons having higher percentage of marks were not included in the panel and making interpolation in the percentage of marks of candidates having lesser percentage of marks, they were included in the selection panel. An enquiry was conducted by the Sub-divisional Education Officer and his report affirmed the allegation with regard to error, committed in preparation of panel and interpolation in the percentage of marks of the candidates. Petitioner’s grievance is that his appointment has been cancelled by the impugned 3 order, issued by the DDC, completely in violation of the rule of natural justice. At no point of time any notice was issued to him either to participate in the enquiry, conducted by the Sub-divisional Education Officer or for appearance before the DDC, prior to issuance of impugned order. In the Counter affidavit, filed on behalf of the State, it has been stated that the DDC, who happens to be the Appellate Authority, receiving complaints regarding illegality committed in preparation of selection panel, directed the SDEO, Nawadah, to enquire into the matter. The SDEO conducted an enquiry and submitted his report. So far petitioner Md. Azam Azad is concerned it was found that he had submitted two different mark- sheets. In one mark-sheet, his percentage of marks was 70 percent and in another mark-sheet, it was 74.16 per cent. This created a serious doubt over his mark-sheet and that is the reason that DDC, considering the report, cancelled petitioner’s appointment. Nowhere, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that any notice was issued to the petitioner either to participate in the enquiry or to appear before the DDC to explain the allegation 4 regarding two different mark-sheets, showing two different percentage of marks. Counsel for the petitioner submits that by a common order, appointment of 39 untrained teachers had been cancelled. Out of 39 untrained teachers, 30 teachers, preferred C.W.J.C. No. 2209 of 2008, challenging the order dated 21.12.2007, passed by the DDC, Nawadah. The impugned termination order in case of writ petitioners of C.W.J.C. No. 2209 of 2008 was quashed on the ground that termination order has been issued in violation of the Rule of Natural Justice. However, liberty was given to the Respondent-Authorities to conduct fresh enquiry in accordance with law, observing Rule of Natural Justice. Till further Orders, the writ petitioners were allowed to continue on their posts, holding that they will be entitled for receiving their salary and other benefits. Considering the fact that petitioner’s case is identical and he has also challenged the same impugned order, I do not find any reason to pass any contradictory Order. The impugned order, in case of the petitioner, is also quashed. In case, he is continuing his service, he will be allowed to continue and if he is not continuing, he will be reinstated. 5 Salary and other benefits will be paid to the petitioner. Respondents have liberty to conduct fresh enquiry, observing the rule, relating to natural justice. In case of fresh enquiry, if it is found that the petitioner’s appointment is illegal or it has been made on account of some serious illegalities, Respondents will have liberty to pass order in accordance with law. Respondents will have liberty to prepare fresh panel, observing 2006 Rules and pass necessary orders. Accordingly, this Writ Application is allowed. SKM (Mridula Mishra, J.)