IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.8413 of 2010 1. ANITA KUMARI W/O SRI DINDAYAL MAHTO R/O VILL KUSMABASDIHA TOLA AMARPUR, P.S.SIMRA, DISTT- AURANGABAD Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY-CUM-COMMISSIONER, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA 2. THE DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION , HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 3. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE AURANGABAD 4. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL OFFICER AURANGABAD 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION AURANGABAD, DISTT-AURANGABAD 6. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER BLOCK AMBA (KUTUMBA), DISTT-AURANGABAD 7. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER BLOCK AMBA (KUTUMBA), DISTT-AURANGABAD ----------- For the Petitioner : M/s Rajeev Kumar Singh and Juber Ansari. For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok,S.C. 19 and Mr. Satyeshwar Prasad, A.C. to S.C. 19. 2 7.7.2010 This case shows how bureaucracy refuses to give up its assumed power and authority to interfere in every aspect of the matter. The State Government formed the cadre of Block Teachers, who are to be appointed by the Panchayat Samiti, under Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition)Rules, 2006 in respect of Kutumba Block of Aurangabad district . The Selection Committee for selecting block level teachers, issued advertisement and after scrutinizing formed a panel and consequently appointed about 41 teachers in the year 2007. It appears that there were some complaints, which were enquired by the Subdivisional Officer, who reported the matter to the Deputy Development Commissioner and ultimately the matter reached the Principal Secretary, Department of Human - 2 - Resources, Government of Bihar .The Principal Secretary perused the entire records in respect of appointments , so made, and directed that the process of selection should be carried out afresh from the stage of preparation of merit list i.e. after notice to the party in the merit list, the counseling should be done and as per roster make appointment. Pursuant to the said direction, the Selection Committee noticed all the persons and then made fresh appointment. The Principal Secretary had ordered that those persons, who were re-figured in the appointment list, would be deemed to be continuing in service as that of the initial appointment .Petitioner re-figured in the list at serial no. 19 this time and as such continued but as a consequence of fresh counseling and fresh appointment, she was not being issued fresh appointment letter. She approached the District Teachers Appointment Tribunal, which passed an order after examining the records that the petitioner had been re-selected on basis of direction of the Principal Secretary and as such appointment letter had to be issued. It appears that the District Appellate Tribunal was in seisin of number of disputes of different Panchayats and was passing different orders. Those orders were not of the liking of some officers of the district including District Superintendent of Education. There appears to be a discord amongst the said officers impelling the Sub divisional Officer. He enquired into the appointments made in all Panchayats and orders passed by the Tribunal in this regard and then he offered this comment whether the tribunal order is correct or not. This report is then forwarded to the Collector as if the Sub-divisional Officer is the supervising authority - 3 - over the tribunal. This report is Annexure 1 to the writ application and is dated 21.12.2009. In this report the appointment, as made, in Kutumba block is mentioned at serial no. 25 , where it is specifically noticed by the Sub divisional officer that the petitioner has been appointed pursuant to selection as directed by the Principal Secretary and accordingly the tribunal directed issuance of appointment letter , which is not being issued. He does not have any comment. In the conclusion of the report , he recommended the District Collector that in view of the fact, as found by him, District Superintendent of Education may be directed to cancel all those appointments and stop payment of salary to all those teachers, who have been appointed pursuant to order of the tribunal. Not only its propriety but the legality of such a recommendation is in question but the Collector without application of mind and without realizing his position recommended to District Superintendent of Education to act according to the recommendation of Sub divisional Officer. Consequent thereto the District Superintendent of Education ordered for cancellation of petitioner’s appointment as appointment letter was issued pursuant to order of the tribunal. These are the relevant facts . Having heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself. The first contention on behalf of the petitioner is simple and fair. If one refers to the report and recommendation of the Sub divisional officer, as contained in Annexure 1 to the writ petition, one would find that so far as petitioner’s appointment is concerned, as - 4 - directed by the tribunal , there is no adverse comments nor any adverse recommendation. This, the general recommendation as made by the Sub divisional Officer in the report would not apply and as such all actions terminating the services of the petitioner and stopping salary are bad. This submission has to be accepted for more than one reasons. First on fact there was, in fact, no adverse finding as against the order of the appellate tribunal. That being so, there was no recommendation also of this nature in particular relating to the petitioner. Thus the general expression of opinion of Sub divisional officer would not cover the case of the petitioner and as such the impugned order of District Superintendent of Education in relation to the petitioner is of no relevance and secondly more important and fundamental is with regard to the jurisdiction and authority of District Superintendent of Education , District Collector and Sub divisional Officer to enquire into the correctness or otherwise of the order of the tribunal. In the opinion of this Court they have absolutely no jurisdiction in the matter. They must accept the position and implement the order of the tribunal. The District Superintendent of Education is not a supervising authority or authority above the tribunal . He being an officer of the State is subordinate to the tribunal and has to implement the order of the tribunal rather than make confrontation with the tribunal. Recently this aspect of the matter has been discussed by this Court in the case of Md. Nasriuddin Ansari & ors. –v- The State of Biahr 7 ors. being CWJC No. 7347 of 2010 disposed of on 6.7.2010. Under rule 28 of the Bihar Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006, - 5 - the tribunal has been created as a statutory body to adjudicate upon the validity or otherwise of appointment of Panchayat Teachers. That being the statutory body and having not made under the control of any authority, no authority can undo the order of the State authority rather in order to uphold the rule of law, the State will have to obey and implement the order of the tribunal without demur. If we look to the rule by which the tribunal has been constituted under rule 18 by the State Government, we would find clause 15 thereof in which the state Government itself has provided that the order of the tribunal is final and cannot be challenged by any authority making the order of the tribunal final and binding. If the said rule exists in the State, then Sub divisional Officer, the Collector and the District Superintendent of Education must accept the position and stop in interfering with the order of the tribunal rather must accept to implement the order of the tribunal and that is the mandate of law. I may further add that once by law it is provided and jurisdiction is conferred on any authority to deal with the particular matter then unless it is shown otherwise , it would be deemed that no such authority would have that jurisdiction. This is what is known as “Expressio unius est exclusion alterius”. Thus, on fact and in law , the impugned order of District Superintendent of Education and the impugned action of the respondent- Sub-divisional Officer and Collector cannot be countenanced in law and upheld. They are accordingly quashed. It is accordingly held that the petitioner and his likes, who have been - 6 - appointed under orders of the tribunal or as a consequence thereof would be deemed to be continuing in service uninterrupted for all purposes. With the aforesaid observations and directions the writ petition is allowed. singh (Navaniti Prasad Singh,J)