IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 11340 of 2010 1. RENU KUMARI W/O LAKSHMIKANT TIWARY R/O VILL.- MAIRA, P.O.- SAISAD, BLOCK- DINARA, DISTT.- ROHTAS Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE SECRETARY HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT, NEW SECRETARIAT BUILDING, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, BAILEY ROAD, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, ROHTAS 4. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ROHTAS 5. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, DINARA, ROHTAS 6. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXPENSION OFFICER, DINARA, ROHTAS 7. THE BLOCK VETERINARY OFFICER, DINARA, ROHTAS 8. THE MUKHIA, GRAM PANCHAYAT SAIDAD, BLOCK- DINARA, DISTT. - ROHTAS 9. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, SAISAD BLOCK-DINARA, DISTT.- ROHTAS ----------- 2 01.10.2010 The petitioner had applied for the post of Shiksha Mitra. She was duly selected and appointment letter given to her. She alleges that when she went to join, the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat asked for illegal gratification. When she refused to pay, the appointment letter was snatched from her and after using whitener, her name was erased and name of one Abha Kumari inserted. Accordingly, Abha Kumari was appointed. Petitioner made representations to the Collector, to the Block Development Officer, to the Panchayat Secretary including Lok Ayukta. When nothing was done, petitioner filed a writ petition before this Court and this Court directed the Collector of the district to enquire into the matter and pass necessary orders. Accordingly, Miscellaneous Case No 1 of 2009 (Shiksha Mitra) was registered before the Collector, Rohtas at Sasaram. The said Abha Kumari was also noticed 2 in the proceeding apart from the Mukhiya being noticed. It may also be noticed at this place that Collector, under the notification for appointment of Shiksha Mitra, was the authority before whom grievances had to be taken. Before the Collector, petitioner once again clearly asserted that because she failed to give illegal gratification to the Mukhiya, Mukhiya refused to accept her appointment and used petitioner’s appointment letter to appoint Abha Kumari. Mukhiya took a strange defence before the Collector. His defence was that the roster point, on which petitioner was appointed, was for reserved category. Petitioner was general category and was wrongly sought to be appointed. Realising this mistake, her appointment letter was taken back and Abha Kumari was appointed meaning thereby that Abha Kumari was a reserved candidate and Mukhiya was trying to rectify the situation. The Collector first went into the question as to who was more meritorious and he verified the system of marking. He came to a categorical finding that petitioner Renu Kumari was indeed more meritorious and was above in the merit list and, in normal course, ought to have been selected. Thus, she was rightly issued the appointment letter. So far as the defence of the Mukhiya is concerned, the Collector gives a categorical finding that the defence is palpably false. He gives a finding that the roster point was for general category candidate and not any reserved candidate as pleaded by Mukhiya. He further notes that even Abha Kumari, who had been appointed, was a general candidate and not a reserved candidate. Thus, the Collector clearly found that defence of the Mukhiya was outright mala fide and none est. In my view, that substantiates petitioner’s plea that having failed to oblige the 3 Mukhiya with illegal gratification, all this had occurred. Be that as it may, the Collector found that petitioner had been wrongly and unjustly deprived of appointment. In my view, she was mala fide deprived of her appointment still the Collector, though set aside the appointment of the said Abha Kumari after hearing Abha Kumari, did not pass orders for appointment of the petitioner as he was of the view that the notification for appointment of Shiksha Mitra had been cancelled and no fresh appointment could be made. In my view, in view of the inequitous situation created by the mala fide action of the Mukhiya, equity must be restored. Justice must be done to the petitioner. Collector is correct that the notification for appointment of Shiksha Mitra has been repealed but it has a repeal and re- enactment of the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. No vacuum is created. In fact, if one refers to Rule 20 of the 2006 Rules, it clearly provides that all Shiksha Mitras, who were working at that time upon rescinding of the notification appointing them as Shiksha Mitra, would be automatically absorbed as permanent Panchayat Teachers. Thus, a continuity has been maintained. Abha Kumari, who has now been ordered to be dismissed, is in fact already working as Panchayat Teacher. It is that position which petitioner would now be entitled. That is the only way justice and equity can be done. I order accordingly. Petitioner would be taken in service on the post of Teacher in the concerned Panchayat in place of Abha Kumari. I, accordingly, direct the concerned Panchayat Secretary, Saisad, Block – Dinara, District – Rohtas to immediately, preferably within one month, 4 issue appointment letter to the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher. It would be the responsibility of the Collector, Rohtas to ensure proper compliance of this order. This writ application is, accordingly, allowed. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)