IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No.78 of 2011 IN CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE No. 14207 of 2010 WITH INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION No. 422 of 2011 IN LETTERS PATENT APPEAL No. 78 of 2011 ==================================================== Pinku Kumar son of Arjun Ram, resident of Village-Dumrawan, P.S.- Asthawan, District-Nalanda. …. …. Respondent-8- Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. Principal Secretary, Department of Panchayati Raj, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. Anushrawan Padadhikari, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 5. District Superintendent of Education, Nalanda at Biharsharif. 6. Block Development Officer, Asthawan, District-Nalanda. 7. Block Education Extension Officer, Asthawan, District-Nalanda. …. …. Respondents – Respondent Ist Set 8. Maksudan Paswan @ Madhusudan Paswan, son of Indradeo Paswan, resident of Village- Jethiyar, P.S.-Asthawan, Distt.-Nalanda. …. …. Writ petitioner – Respondent 2nd Set. ==================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Vidyasagar, Advocate with Mr. Kumar Onkar Nath, Advocate For the Respondent: Mr. Prabhakar Tekriwal, GA-1 with Mr. Alok Kumar, A.C. to GA-I ==================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 3. 7.2.2011. Letters Patent Appeal No. 78 of 2011 with Interlocutory Application No. 422 of 2011: - This appeal preferred under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent arises from the judgment and order dated 20th December 2010 passed by the learned single Judge - 2 - in above C.W.J.C. No. 14207 of 2010. The appellant is the respondent no.8 in the writ petition. The matter at dispute is the appointment of one Sudhir Kumar as Panchayat Teacher under the District Superintendent of Education, District-Nalanda. Feeling aggrieved by the appointment of the said Sudhir Kumar the appellant lodged a complaint against the respondent no. 8, Maksudan Paswan @ Madhusudan Paswan, the elected Mukhiya of Village-Jethiyar, Police Station-Asthawan, District-Nalanda. According to the appellant, the respondent no.8 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Mukhiya’) had manipulated the merit list so as to make the said Sudhir Kumar a successful candidate and to appoint him as the Panchayat Teacher. Pursuant to the said complaint an enquiry was made against the Mukhiya under Section 18(5) of the Bihar Panchayat Raj Act, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Pursuant to the said enquiry by order dated 9th August 2010 made by the Government of Bihar the Mukhiya was ordered to be removed from his office. It was held that the Mukhiya had in connivance with the said Sudhir Kumar manipulated the results by giving the benefit of 75% marks secured by the said Sudhir Kumar in Madhyama. The said order was challenged by the Mukhiya in the above C.W.J.C. No. 14207 of 2010. Learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, quashed the order of removal of the Mukhiya and directed that consequential steps be taken by the respondent authorities. Learned single Judge was pleased to hold that the power of removal of Mukhiya conferred by Section 18(5) of the - 3 - Act could be invoked only in a very extreme case with strong reason and should not be exercised in case of minor irregularities in discharge of duties. Feeling aggrieved the complainant has preferred the present appeal. Learned advocate Mr. Vidyasagar has appeared for the appellant. He has submitted that the appellant was also a candidate for appointment as Panchayat Teacher. Against his non-selection and selection of the aforesaid Sudhir Kumar he has filed a substantive writ petition C.W.J.C. No. 9388 of 2008 (Pinku Kumar Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), which is pending before the learned single Judge for hearing and decision. He has submitted that the qualification of Madhyama secured by the said Sudhir Kumar is not a recognized qualification. Its marks could not have been considered for drawing the merit list. In support thereof he has relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of The State of Bihar v. Mamta Kumari {2010(4) PLJR 318}. On perusal of the record, it appears that the said Sudhir Kumar had secured 63.3% marks at the intermediate level in the year 1992. He had also taken Madhyama examination and had secured 75% marks in the said examination in the year 1993. May be, a certificate of Madhyama secured by the said Sudhir Kumar was not a valid qualification and such qualification ought not have been taken into consideration for drawing merit list. But, we are unable to impute malafide or fraud against the Mukhiya. At the - 4 - most, consideration of such certificate may be an irregularity. The matter is at large before the learned single Judge as aforesaid and will be decided in accordance with law. We need not express our opinion on that issue in the present appeal. We do agree with the learned single Judge that the Mukhiya could not have been held guilty of malpractices or a grave illegality. At the most, the conduct of the Mukhiya may amount to irregularity which could not have entailed removal from the office in exercise of powers conferred by Section 18(5) of the Act. Learned single Judge has rightly allowed the writ petition and has rightly set aside the order of removal of the Mukhiya. We have also noticed that though it was the order of the State Government which has been quashed by the learned single Judge, the State Government has not thought it fit to challenge the judgment of the learned single Judge. The appellant being a mere complainant cannot be an aggrieved person; nor would the appeal be maintainable at his instance. For the aforesaid reasons, the Appeal is dismissed in limine. Interlocutory Application No. 422 of 2011 stands disposed of. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Jyoti Saran, J)