IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC NO.11691 OF 2007 ASHA RANI, D/O SHRI MAHESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- BHORAMWAG (KAUA KOLE), P.O.- ITPAKWA, DISTT.- NAWADAH. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH 3. THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PAKRIBARAWAN DISTT.- NAWADAH 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PAKRIBARAWAN DISTT.- NAWADAH 6. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT DATROL BLOCK- PAKRIBARAWAN, DISTT.- NAWADAH 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, DATROL BLOCK- PAKRIBARAWAN, DISTT.- NAWADAH 8. THE SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, NAWADAH. WITH CWJC NO.14992 OF 2009 ASHA RANI D/O SHRI MAHESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- BHORAMWAG (KAUA KOLE), P.O.- ITPAKWA, DISTT.- NAWADAH. …………………PETITIONER. VERSUS 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, NAWADAH 3. THE COMMISSIONER & SECRETARY, DEPTT. OF HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, PAKRIBARAWAN DISTT.- NAWADAH 5. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER, PAKRIBARAWAN DISTT.- NAWADAH 6. THE MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHAYAT DATROL BLOCK- PAKRIBARAWAN, DISTT.- NAWADAH 7. THE PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, DATROL BLOCK- PAKRIBARAWAN, DISTT.- NAWADAH 8. THE SUB DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, NAWADAH. ………………………RESPONDENTS. For the Petitioner: Mr. Arun Kumar, Adv. 2 For the State: Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, AAG-IX and Mr. Vishwambhar Prasad, A.C to AAG- IX. ----------- 07/ 08.09.2011 C.W.J.C NO. 11691 of 2007. Heard counsel for the parties. The petitioner has filed this writ application for quashing of an order dated 24.08.2007 passed by the Block Development Officer, Pakribarawan, District-Nawada, so far it relates to her appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. The Block Development Officer, Pakribarawan, District-Nawada in the impugned order as with regard to the cancellation of appointment of the petitioner had held as follows:- ^^tkap izfrosnu esa iz[k.M f'k{kk izlkj ink0 idjhokjoka dk tks ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd ucknk dks lEcksf/kr gS esa mYys[k fd;k x;k gS fd nRrksjkSy iapk;r esa jksLVj la0 858 fodykax vH;FkhZ ds fy, lqjf{kr gS tcfd ml ij B.C.F. esa vk'kkjkuh firk egs'oj ;kno dks fd;k x;k gS] tks mfpr ugha gSa jksLVj 858 dk in fodykax dksfV ds B.C.F. mEehnokj ls Hkjk tkuk gSA bl izdkj fcgkj f'k{kk fu;kstu fu;ekoyh 2006 ds fu;e 18 ds rgr vk'kkjkuh dk Hkh fu;stu jn~n fd;k tkrk gSA lEcaf/kr iapk;r ds iapk;r f'k{kd fu;kstu lfefr dks vkns'k fn;k tkrk gS fd blds LFkku ij fo"k;karxZr fodykax vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;kstu djuk lqfuf'pr djsaA** Learned counsel for the petitioner assailing the aforementioned portion of the order has taken a specific plea that roster point no. 858 was reserved for Backward Category Female (B.C.F) and not 3 for the Physically Handicapped category and as such the order of termination of the petitioner was based on non est and non existent materials. This Court in its order dated 19.07.2011, had accordingly directed the respondents to file a specific affidavit as to whether there was any Physically Challenged candidate (Handicapped) among the Backward Category of Female Candidates, who could have been appointed on roster point no. 858. A Supplementary counter affidavit filed today has cleared the mist, wherein, the Block Development Officer, Pakribarawan, District-Nawada has stated as follows:- “That so far as the appointment on roster point 858 is concerned, it is humbly stated that the said roster point 858 was reserved for backward class female (B.C.F.) and as such roster point 858 was reserved for a Backward Class Female candidate which is also evident from letter no. 2502 (Sthapana 1) dated 29.08.2011 issued under the signature of District Education Officer, Nawada. 5.That with regard to the fact as to whether there was any physically challenged candidate amongst the backward category of female candidates who could have 4 been appointed on roster point 858, it is humbly stated that no such physically challenged candidate appeared for counseling held under the Panchayat Shikshak Niyojan, 2006.Hence, no physically challenged candidate could be appointed.” These statements have been also fully supported with the connecting documents as contained in Annexure-D, E and F which, by themselves, would go to show that the appointment of the petitioner was made on the basis of a correct application of roster point. The respondents should have been therefore, careful in terminating the services of the petitioner specially when there is also no separate reservation for the Handicapped Category and only three per cent of candidates of Handicapped Category have to be accommodated in the respective categories. To that extent, when it is also admitted by the respondents in their supplementary counter affidavit that no handicapped person in the backward category female (B.C.F.) had even appeared for the counseling, the inevitable result would 5 be that the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Shikshak was absolutely justified especially when there is no dispute that she belongs to backward class female category (B.C.F.). That being so, this Court would quash the portion of the order of the Block Development Officer, Pakribarawan, District - Nawada dated 24.08.2007 as quoted above and would direct for her continuation as was ensured by an interim order passed by this Court on 26.09.2007 in C.W.J.C. NO. 11691 of 2007. Before parting with, this Court with reference to the following order dated 25.08.2011 reading as follows:- Learned AAG IX would explain that the order of this Court dated 19.7.2011 as reiterated by the subsequent order dated 17.8.2011 could not be complied because of non-cooperation on the part of respondent no.5, the Block Education Extension Officer, Pakribarawan, in the District of Nawadah. It has also been stated that respondent no.5 despite the direction given by the District Magistrate, Nawadah has not done the needful on account of which the order of this Court has not been 6 complied. While this Court would expect the respondents to sort out such administrative matter at their own level but then taking into account that there was a direction of this Court in the order dated 19.7.2011 and the respondents themselves have fixed the responsibility on respondent no.5 to be the person withholding such information and not filing the required supplementary counter affidavit, this Court would direct the holder of the post of Block Education Extension Officer, Pakribarawan, Nawadah to appear in person on 7th September, 2011 at 10.30 A.M. with a show cause reply as to why he should not be proceeded and punished under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. Such action, however, would be without prejudice to the right of the District Magistrate of Nawadah to initiate a departmental proceeding against respondent no.5 for dereliction of duty.” has looked into the show cause reply filed by Kumari Nisha the Block Education Extension Officer, Pakribarawan, District-Nawada, wherein, she has explained that she had no knowledge of the order of this Court dated 19.07.2011 till 16.08.2011 and after receiving such information on 17.08.2011 she had taken prompt steps for filing the supplementary counter affidavit. It has accordingly been 7 submitted by Mr. S. Raza Ahmad, Learned AAG-9 that there was no deliberate intention on the part of the aforesaid Block Education Officer, Pakribarawan, District-Nawada to disobey the order of this Court dated 19.07.2011. Considering the aforementioned facts and in the light of the explanations given in the show cause reply, this Court would drop the matter as against Kumari Nisha, Block Education Officer, (earlier known as Block Education Extension Officer), Pakribarawan, District-Nawada with a note of caution to her that she should be vigilant and careful in future as with regard to the compliance of the order and direction of this Court. With the aforesaid observation and directions this writ application is allowed. C.W.J.C NO. 14992 of 2009: Coming to the other writ application being C.W.J.C NO. 14992 of 2009, in which the sole grievance of the 8 petitioner is with regard to payment of her salary from the date of her appointment and till today, this Court would find no justification in denying such payment of salary to the petitioner for the admitted work done by her. The petitioner even after being allowed to join the post of Panchayat Shikshak on 10.03.2007 was not paid her salary on account of impugned order of termination of her service dated 24.08.2007, even when its operation had been stayed by this Court in the interim order dated 26.09.2007. As a matter of fact, when there was an interim order directing the petitioner to continue in service while staying her order of termination, the respondents in all fairness ought to have made payment of her salary, for the admitted period of her working. Such working of the petitioner has also not been disputed by the respondents in their counter affidavit. The only plea of the respondents that such payment of 9 salary of the petitioner had to be made by the Mukhiya on the basis of the allotment of fund made by the Block Development Officer, Pakribarawan, District-Nawada would be of no avail, insamuch as, if the present Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat did not comply with the order of the Government functionary, the recourse is already provided in the Gram Panchayat Act for such disobedience should have been taken against Mukhia inasmuch he could be removed from his post for not carrying out the legal orders of the State Government and its functionaries based on a direction of this Court. In that view of the matter, this court would direct the District Education Officer, Nawada to ensure that the payment of arrears and current salary of the petitioner is made within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the Mukhiya of the concerned Gram Panchayat 10 causes any obstacle in the payment of salary of the petitioner, the Collector of the Nawada district would be under an obligation to initiate a proceeding for his removal from the post of Mukhiya. With the aforementioned observations and direction, this application is also disposed of. The personal appearance of Kumari Nisha, Block Education Extension Officer now renamed as Block Education Officer, Pakribarawan is hereby dispensed with. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)