IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10715 of 2009 ====================================================== Savita Kumari, W/o Shri Kamlesh Kumar D/o Shri Madhusudan Prasad Singh, Resident of Mohalla Krishnapatti, Police Station – Jamui, Disrict - Jamui .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The District Magistrate, Jamui. 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Jamui. 4. The Block Development Officer, Khaira Block, Jamui. 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Khaira Block, Jamui. 6. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui through its Chairman. 7. The Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui. 8. The Mukhiya Khaira Gram Panchayat, Block Khaira, District – Jamui. 9. The Panchayat Secretary, Khaira Gram Panchayat Block Khaira, District Jamui. 10. Smt. Kiran wife of Shri Ravi Bhushan Kumar, resident of Village Pirhinda Police Station Sikandara, District – Jamui. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ram Sagar Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. (Gp11) Mr. Arun Kumar Mr. Chandrashekharsingh'Azad' ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. MRIDULA MISHRA) 06/ 19-10-2011 Heard counsel for the petitioner and counsel appearing for Respondent No. 8 and the State. Petitioner’s appointment as Panchayat teacher in New Primary School (Samudaik Bhawan) has been cancelled by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui vide order contained in Memo No. 479 dated 11.7.2009. Prayer of the petitioner is for quashing of the impugned order cancelling her Patna High Court CWJC No.10715 of 2009 (6) dt.19-10-2011 2 / 6 2 appointment and for a direction to respondents to reinstate her on the post of Panchayat Teacher as well payment of arrears as well as current salary. The vacancy on the post of Panchayat Teachers in Khaira Gram Panchayat was advertised. Petitioner, Respondent No. 10 and others applied for the post. The merit panel was prepared, counselling was held and all vacancies were filled except one vacancy which remains unfilled. In order to fill one vacant post of Panchayat Teacher a public notice was issued under the joint signature of District Magistrate, Jamui and District Superintendent of Education –cum- District Programme Co- ordinator, Jamui in news paper Dainik Jagran on 7.10.2007. In this public notice the entire schedule to be issued for completing the process for appointment against one remaining vacancy detail has been given. 10.10.2007 was the date for receiving information regarding vacancy. 12.102007 was the date for publishing merit panel. 16.10.2007 was the date of inviting objections. 24.10.2007 was the date for disposal of objections as well as for issuance of appointment letter. Petitioner’s case is that as per the schedule published in daily news paper Dainik Jagran dated 7.10.2007 objections were raised against the merit panel and on 24.10.2007 was the date for Patna High Court CWJC No.10715 of 2009 (6) dt.19-10-2011 3 / 6 3 counselling as well as disposal of objection and issuance of appointment letter. Against one vacancy panel of 10 candidates was prepared and as per the scheduled date on 24.10.2007 it was also held. No one appeared before the Selection Committee for counselling on the appointed date except the petitioner, she was selected and appointment letter was issued and she gave joining in the concerned School. No objection was made by anyone against the appointment of the petitioner immediately after her appointment. After about one year Respondent No. 10 filed an appeal before District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui, that was entertained and without issuing any notice to the writ petitioner, her appointment was cancelled. She filed writ application against the order passed by the Appellate Authority and the matter was remitted back to the Appellate Authority for deciding afresh giving opportunity to all concerned. The petitioner was also given an opportunity of hearing including Respondent No. 10, Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary. The Appellate Authority again cancelled the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that without any information to Respondent No. 10 counselling was held due to which petitioner having lesser mark than Respondent No. 10 was appointed. Patna High Court CWJC No.10715 of 2009 (6) dt.19-10-2011 4 / 6 4 The petitioner had submitted before the Appellate Authority that a public notice regarding date of counselling was given to all concerned by its publication in the news paper dated 7.10.2007. Objections were also invited and on the date of objection itself counselling was done and appointment letter was issued. It has also submitted that under 2006 Rules there is no provision for giving individual notice to each candidate for participating in the counselling. Only provision is to invite objections against the merit panel and disposal of objections and thereafter issuance of appointment letter. The Appellate Authority rejected this submission of the petitioner on the ground that under the rule there is specific provision for submitting applications along with two postal envelopes of a particular size. This provision has been made in order to give individual notice to the candidates regarding counselling and to give information of such selection to the concerned authority. The mandatory provision under the rule for furnishing two envelopes of a particular size is sufficient to indicate that there is provision for issuance of individual notice to each candidate for their participation in the counselling. Since, it was not done by the Selection Committee; as such appointment of petitioner should have been made in violation of rule of natural Patna High Court CWJC No.10715 of 2009 (6) dt.19-10-2011 5 / 6 5 justice. Under 2006 Rules there is provision for publication of merit panel and giving its publication in the notice board of Panchayat office or Circle office. On the basis of such publication of merit panel within eight days candidates have to submit their objections. A date is to be fixed for consideration of such objections and so far date of counselling is concerned, it has been stated that after counselling the appointment letters is to be issued. I find that a candidate unless will be informed regarding the date of counselling they cannot appear for counselling before the Selection Committee, even though there is no such provision under the Rule but the propriety demands that notice should be there to the candidates, whose names are there in the panel informing that on a particular date, they have to participate in counselling. In the notice published in the daily news paper Dainik Jagran there is no date fixed for counselling. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the Appellate Authority that Respondent No. 10 had no notice regarding date of counselling and the candidate having higher mark has not participated in the counselling, and that is the reason that petitioner having lesser percentage of marks got appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher. In this finding of the Appellate Authority I find merit. Counsel representing Respondent No. 10 has submitted Patna High Court CWJC No.10715 of 2009 (6) dt.19-10-2011 6 / 6 6 that immediately after having knowledge of such illegal selection made by the Selection Committee, he raised objection by filing application before the D.S.E., since, D.S.E. was not a competent appellate authority under 2006 Rules, and the Block Development Officer was the appellate forum, objection remain unattended. The B.D.O. the Appellate Authority, she cannot raise any objection as the Appellate Authority was adamant for not accepting the objection. Subsequently, after coming into force of 2008 Rules, when District Teachers Appointment Appellate forum was created, her objection was entertained and the order was passed. The delay is apparent in raising objection by Respondent No. 10, but only on account of delay her objection could not have been rejected for the reason that in selection of Panchayat Teachers cannot be ignored. No one, other than the writ petitioner appeared for counselling, this itself is sufficient to show that candidates had no notice for participating in counselling. No any other person had special knowledge about the date of counselling. This is a sufficient ground for holding petitioner’s appointment illegal. I do not find any error in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority. Accordingly, this application is dismissed. DKS/ (Mridula Mishra, J)