IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13727 of 2007 Manoj Tanti, son of Sri Chaturi Tanti, resident of village Sadanandpur, P.S. Ballia, District Begusarai … Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar, through the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 3. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 4. The Block Development Officer, Ballia, Begusarai 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Ballia, Begusarai 6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Fatehpur, Ballia, Begusarai 7. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Fatehpur, Ballia, Begusarai 8. Sri Anil Kumar, son of late Ramawatar Sharma, resident of village Sadanandpur, P.S. Ballia, District Begusarai 9. Sri Ram Prakash Kumar Tanti @ Ram Prakash Tanti, son of Brahmadeo Tanti, resident of Village-Sadanandapur (Balachak), P.S.-Balia, District-Begusarai. … Respondents ---------------------------------- 6. 14.9.2011 I.A.No. 5666 of 2011 For the reasons mentioned in this application the prayer made therein for impleading the intervenor Ram Prakash Kumar Tanti @ Ram Prakash Tanti is allowed and his name will be incorporated as respondent no.9 of this writ application. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing and commanding the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for his engagement/ appointment as Siksha Mitra with retrospective effect against the unit/ post reserved for Most Backward Class category according to Roster upon which the respondent no.8 who belongs to another category of Backward Class, has been appointed/ engaged ignoring the claim of the petitioner who belongs to Most Backward class. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to give the petitioner 2 all consequential benefits including Honorarium and extension etc. after engaging/ appointing the petitioner as Siksha Mitra with retrospective effect. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/ direction directing and commanding the respondent no.1 and 2 to take appropriate legal actions against the persons responsible for not engaging/ appointing the petitioner as Siksha Mitra on the post/ unit reserved for Most Backward class category as well as for violating the mandatory reservation Rules, Roster and instructions.” It was quite easy for this Court to reject the prayer of the petitioner at the out set in view of the fact that the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra stands abolished with effect from 1.7.2006 and therefore, no direction could have been given for considering the case of the petitioner for his engagement/ appointment as Shiksha Mitra as prayed in this writ application. The issue, however, is not so simple, inasmuch as the petitioner’s grievance basically had emanated on account of the alleged illegal appointment of respondent no.8, Anil Kumar Sharma. This Court had found that the order of appointment of Anil Kumar Sharma was passed by the Sukh Suvidha Samiti but subsequently the B.D.O. in exercise of power under Rule 18 of the Panchayat Shikshak Rules, 2006 had interfered in the matter by cancelling appointment of Anil Kumar Sharma as also two others, Sanju Kumari and Preeti Kumari vide orders dated 1.8.2007 and 1.4.2008 respectively. The B.D.O., Ballia, however, did not stop at that stage and in fact on 12.8.2008 he had also directed the 3 Panchayat Secretary for issuance of appointment letter in favour of Chhunu Poddar, Amod Kumar Nirala and Ram Prakash Tanti on the post of Shikshamitra. When this aspect of the matter was placed before this Court as the order passed by the B.D.O., being the competent authority under Rule 18, at that point of time in 2008, before constitution of the District Teachers Appellate Authority this Court taking cognizance of such a final order, had directed the respondents to file their supplementary counter affidavit for justifying appointment of the three persons, namely, Chunnu Poddar, Amod Kumar Nirala and Ram Prakash Tanti on 12.8.2008 on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra even after abolition of such posts w.e.f. 1.7.2006 and in teeth of order of State Government contained in letter no. 1899 dated 10.11.2006 as also letter no. 2517 dated 4.7.2008 and the consequential direction of D.S.E., Begusarai banning any new appointment on the post of Shikshamitra vide his letter no. 1813 dated 23.7.2008. In this regard an order was passed by this Court on 19.7.2011, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “ Having heard counsel for the parties this Court would direct the Collector of Begusarai to submit a report as to under what circumstances the Block Development Officer, Ballia and the Panchayat Sachiv, Gram Panchayat Fatehpur had passed orders bearing Memo no.1 Camp Ballia dated 3.9.2008 appointing Chunnu Poddar, Amod Kumar Nirala and Ram Prakash Tanti on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra when such post had already stood abolished with effect from 1.7.2006. The said report of the 4 Collector would also indicate as to what disciplinary action has been proposed by him in case he would find that the said decision of the Block Development Officer and the Panchayat Secretary was wholly without jurisdiction.” Initially a supplementary counter affidavit was filed on behalf of respondent no.3 sworn by the District programme Officer (Establishment), Begusarai but as that did not contain the report of the Collector, Begusarai District, this Court had passed an order on 12.9.2011, relevant portion whereof reads as follows: “ Having regard to the earlier order of this Court dated 19.7.2011 and the consequential supplementary counter affidavit filed by the District Programme Officer, Begusarai, this Court is satisfied that the direction given by this Court in the order dated 19.7.2011 has been sought to be flouted by the Collector of Begusarai District, inasmuch as there is no report by him. In that view of the matter, this Court would direct the Collector of Begusarai District to appear in person day after tomorrow. It will be open for him to file his show cause as to why he should not be held guilty for non-compliance of the order of this Court dated 19.7.2011 which as per learned counsel for the State was faxed to him by the office of the Govt. Pleader.” Today Mr. Jitendra Srivastava, the Collector, Begusarai District has appeared in person and has explained the circumstances in his show cause reply in which he could not submit his report earlier as per direction of this Court contained in the order dated 19.7.2011. Having perused such explanation of the 5 Collector, Begusarai this Court would drop the matter with a note of caution to him that he should be more careful and vigilant in future in compliance of the order of this Court. Coming to the merits of the case this Court would find that there was no justification whatsoever in the action and the resultant order of the B.D.O., Ballia in directing appointment of three persons, namely, Chunnu Poddar, Amod Kumar Nirala and Ram Prakash Tanti on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 12.8.2008, inasmuch as such post had already stood abolished with effect from 1.7.2006. Such an order passed by the B.D.O., Ballia was also in teeth of the Government orders dated 10.11.2006 (Annexure-C) and 4.7.2008 and 23.7.2008 (Annexure-19) would make him and Panchayat Secretary issuing the order of appointment in favour of Respondent no. 9 and to others for the post of Panchayat Shikshamitra directly responsible and answerable for disobeying the Government direction and thereby creating an untoward situation for the District administration. This Court in this regard has also noted the stand taken by the Collector, Begusarai in his affidavit/show cause reply filed today stating therein that he had already issued a show cause notice both to the then B.D.O., Ballia and the Panchayat Secretary on 13.9.2011 and an appropriate decision by way of a decision for initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them would be taken. at the shortest possible point of time. This Court for the time being would therefore not like to prejudge the alleged misconduct of the then B.D.O., Balia and Panchayat Secretary , Balia but then this 6 much has to be observed that such blatant unauthorized actions and illegal orders as with regard to appointment on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by the B.D.O., Ballia and the Panchayat Secretary should not go un-noticed and must be brought to its logical conclusion by the competent authority. There would be however no difficulty in holding that the appointment of three persons, namely, Chunnu Poddar, Amod Kumar Nirala and Ram Prakash Tanti Panchayat Shikshamitra on 12.8.2008 and 3.9.2008 is wholly unjustified both on facts and in law. It is said that Chunnu Poddar and Amod Kumar Nirala were not allowed to work on the intervention of the Block Education Extension Officer and that they are no longer continuing in service. As with regard to Ram Prakash Tanti, the newly added respondent no.9, it has been stated that though his joining also was not being accepted but then he had created some untoward situation for the Headmaster on account of which his joining was accepted by the Headmaster in order to save his own life. Such allegation, however, is being seriously controverted by the learned counsel for respondent no.9 who would submit that the appointment of respondent no.9 may not be in accordance with law but was justified in the circumstances as he had been ignored at the time of initial selection on the post of Shiksha Mitra. This Court would however not like to go into the aspect, inasmuch as the petitioner had already assailed the appointment of respondent no.9 on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra by filing I.A.No. 7 5741/2008. This Court in presence of learned counsel for respondent no.9 has also not been able to find any justification in appointment of respondent no.9 on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra on 12.8.2008/3.9.2008 despite abolition of the post of Shiksha Mitra with effect from 1.7.2006 and therefore it would quash the order of appointment of respondent no.9 dated 12.8.2008 and 3.9.2008 as contained in Annexure-B and Annexure-14 respectively. . There is no dispute that three post of Panchayat Shikshak in Fatehpur Panchayat had become vacant on account of removal of the three earlier Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The Collector of the District present in Court, however, says that out of these three post two of them on account of removal of Chunnu Poddar and Amod Kumar Nirala may have been filled up by the appointing authority and only one post now sought to be vacated on account of removal of Ram Prakash Tanti would become available for appointment on the post of Panchayat Shikshak. Considering the claim of the petitioner and respondent no.9 that they have the requisite qualification even for the post of Panchayat Shikshak this Court would direct the competent appointing authority to ensure that the vacancy created on account of removal of Ram Prakash Tanti is filled up in accordance with law and Panchayat Shikshak Appointment Rules, 2006 within a period of three months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. Such consideration, of the case of the petitioner and Respondent no. 9 along with other eligible 8 candidates would be made strictly on merit and weightage as envisaged in 2006 Rules and also without being influenced by the fact that neither the petitioner nor respondent no.9 could ultimately be legally appointed as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this application is disposed of. The personal appearance of Mr. Jitendra Srivastava, Collector, Begusarai, is also dispensed with. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/