IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.12634 of 2009 TARANNUM ARA DAUGHTER OF RAZI QUAMA VILLAGE DHAMAUL, P.S. KURTH, DISTRICT ARWAL. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR 2. THE SECRETARY, PRIMARY SECONDARY EDUCATION, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE DISTERICT MAGISTRATE, ARWAL. 5. THE DOSTROCT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION, ARWAL. 6. THE DISTERICT EDUCATION APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ARWAL. 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER, ARWAL. 8. PANCHAYAT SECRETARY, GRAM PANCHAYAT, DHAMAUL, ARWAL. 9. MUKHIYA, GRAM PANCHYAT, KURTHA,ARWAL. 10. NAGMANI KUMARI, WIFE OF RAM JANAM SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE DHAMAUL, P.S. KURTHA, DISTRICT ARWAL. ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Sr. Advocate& Mr. Rajesh Kumar. For the State :- M/s. S. K. Ranjan & V. Vikas, A.C. to S. C. XV For Respondent No. 8:- Mr. Sarvadeo Singh. For Respondent No. 9 :- M/S. Shivendra Kishore & Sanjeev Shankar ----- 5 20/01/2011 Challenge in the present writ application is to the order dated 27.08.2009 passed in case no. 10 of 2008- 2009 which is an order of the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority. Fall out of the said decision is that the private respondent no. 10, namely, - 2 - Nagmani Kumari has been permitted to be reinstated in the school at Dhamaul and petitioner Tarannum Ara has been ousted. Direction has also been issued for payment of salary to the private respondent no. 10. From the narration in the impugned order contained in annexure-1, it is evident that Nagmani Kumari came to be appointed as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 24.02.2004. Subsequently, it seems that her services were not extended because she did not have Intermediate qualification which was laid down as minimum qualification for appointment as a Shiksha Mitra by the State of Bihar. On 9.5.2005 the Panchayat in question decided to appoint one Tarannum Ara and Anita Kumari by the so called resolution taken on 9.5.2005. Yet another person, namely, Irfan Zeya came to be appointed by the said resolution which has been annexed as annexure-3 to the writ application. The reason for dispute or necessity for adjudication arose because two persons became claimant to the post and the problem arose about disbursement of their salary from the said school. Matter came to be - 3 - referred before the Appellate Authority who adjudicated the claim after hearing the parties in the background that subsequently based on a decision rendered in L.P.A. on 12.02.2008 a government notification dated 17.07.2008 (annexure-7) came to be issued. By virtue of this notification, it was resolved that all such persons who otherwise obtained an Intermediate degree within 33 months of their appointment would not be removed and if removed would be reinstated back to their original post. It is in this background that private respondent Nagmani Kumari came to be put back in the school at Dhamaul but the problem arose because Tarannum Aram was also occupying the post by virtue of her appointment made by the Panchayat on 9.5.2005. When the matter was initially heard in Admission, a Stay order was passed by the Court on 11.12.2009. Thereafter a petition for vacating the stay order has been filed but instead of adjudicating on the said petition, the Court decided to take up the matter for final disposal after hearing the parties to the dispute. Contention of the learned counsel representing the petitioner is that her appointment has nothing to do - 4 - with the appointment of private respondent, namely, Nagmani Kumari. She was independently appointed by the Panchayat Samiti vide their resolution dated 9.5.2005 and she has continued to work in the school in question without any let or hindrance till the decision came to be rendered by the Appellate Authority. She should not be disturbed and, in fact, there is no quarrel so far as the private respondent is concerned. It is the decision of the appellate authority which has created anomalous situation for her. Stand of the private respondent is that there is some indication to show that her service was extended but because of the resolution of the Human Resources Development Department of not allowing such persons working as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra to continue because of the lack of Intermediate degree, her services were brought to an end but due to subsequent development and judicial adjudication all such persons including the private respondent came to be reinstated. She joined the school where she was initially appointed and she had a rightful claim because she was first appointed on the post in the school in question which she joined on 24.02.2004. - 5 - Petitioner Tarannum Ara came to occupy the post created by the ouster private respondent in the above stated circumstance. If the law allows her to come back to the post and be reinstated then the natural consequence would be ouster of Tarannum Ara and she had no rightful claim to continue in that capacity at the cost of private respondent no. 10 Nagmani Kumari. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner thereafter submits that appointment of Tarannum Ara is on three additional posts which were made available or found vacant by the Panchayat and it has nothing to do with the post which was occupied by the private respondent. The petitioner should be allowed to continue or adjusted against those three vacancies and the private respondent can continue to occupy the post on which she was appointed. In fact, it is the decision of the appellate authority which has created anomalous situation. The Court has perused the resolution contained in annexure-3 and no clear picture emerges whether there was availability of three extra posts against which Tarannum Ara, Anita Kumari and Irfan Zeya came to be appointed. If it is so, then this Court has nothing to say - 6 - on that issue but if Tarannum Ara has been appointed on the post vacated by the private respondent who came to be ousted because at the relevant time she did not have Intermediate degree, then there is a problem for the petitioner as she cannot be allowed to occupy the post which was vacated by the private respondent in the circumstances taken note of in the earlier part of the order. Right of the private respondent to be reinstated cannot be questioned in light of the decision of the Division Bench as well as the resolution of the State government contained in annexure-7. Therefore, there is no legal infirmity in the decision rendered by the Appellate Authority except a clarification that it is left open to the authorities to verify from the records whether Tarannum Ara was appointed against the so called three extra vacancies found for the Panchayat in question or whether she was accommodated on the post vacated by respondent no. 10 Nagmani Kumari. Nagmani Kumari, therefore, would be permitted to join and continue on the post as such and she will be entitled to her salary and other allowances. So far as the - 7 - status of Tarannum Ara is concerned, that is subject to the verification as such but she cannot be permitted to create problem for the private respondent no. 10 Nagmani Kumari in any manner. This writ application is disposed of with the above observation. AMIN/ (Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)