IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7917 of 2008 1. ANIL KUMAR SINGH, S/O SRI SIDESHWARI PRASAD SINGH, R/O VILLAGE-PAIGA, P.O.- MEDINIPUR, P.S.-NASRIGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 2. BELAL AHMAD KHAN, S/O MOHAMMAD YUNUS RAHMANI, R/O WARD NO.23, BIKRAMGANJ, P.S.- BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ………………PETITIONERS. Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR. 2. THE COMMISSIONER-CUM-SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 3. THE DIRECTOR, (SECONDARY EDUCATION), HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, BIHAR, PATNA. 4. THE REGIONAL DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, PATNA DIVISION, PATNA. 5. THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, ROHTAS. 6. THE SUB-DIVISIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER, SASARAM NORTH, BIKRAMGANJ, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 7. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER, NAGAR PANCHAYAT NOKHA, P.S.-NOKHA, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. 8. THE CHAIRMAN, NAGAR PANCHAYAT, NOKHA, P.S.-NOKHA, DISTRICT-ROHTAS. ………………RESPONDENTS. ----------- 4 04.11.2010 Heard Mr.Nawal Kishore Singh, learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Assistant Counsel to G.A.-II for the respondents. The two petitioners have challenged an order of the Regional Deputy Director of Education (hereinafter referred to as ‘the RDDE’), Patna Division, Patna, as contained in Annexure-1, by which the entire process of appointment of Madhyamik Teacher under the Nokha Nagar Panchayat, District-Rohtas has 2 been cancelled. From the order, it appears that initially there were 19 vacancies and the Nokha Nagar Panchayat Teachers Employment Unit started the process for selection against all the 19 posts. Advertisement was published and after verification of certificates counseling was held in which only three candidates appeared. Out of the 3 candidates two candidates were found eligible and they were appointed who were these petitioners. In respect of 3rd candidate who had appeared in the counseling there was some doubt in respect of his caste certificate and therefore, his candidature was cancelled. Thus, after the first phase of appointment only two candidates i.e. these two petitioners could be appointed and 17 vacancies remained. Therefore, fresh advertisement was published with regard to 17 vacancies, applications were invited and second round of counseling was held on 13.2.2007 in which only 8 candidates appeared. From the impugned order of Regional Deputy Director of Education, it appears that 3 this counseling was also cancelled and another counselling was held. Order shows that the complaints were filed by the unsuccessful candidates against the 2nd round of counseling held on 13.2.2007 and its illegal cancellation without due notice to the candidates for appearing in the subsequent counseling. Learned counsel for the petitioner has rightly pointed out that there is nothing in the entire order of the respondent RDDE to show that there was any complaint with regard to 1st round of counseling and appointment of the petitioners on the basis of the same. He has rightly pointed out that the entire order deals with the 2nd round of counseling held on 13.2.2007 and subsequent events which were found by the RDDE as contrary to the Rules. However, overlooking the fact that no question was raised with regard to the validity of the appointment of the petitioners on the basis of the first counseling the respondent RDDE has cancelled the entire process. Learned counsel submits that this was unwarranted and illegal as the petitioners’ appointment was never doubted 4 and questioned on the basis of the 1st round of counseling at any stage. Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent RDDE and it is stated that since he found the process of appointment in breach of the Rules he cancelled the entire process and has directed the Employment Unit to hold a fresh exercise for appointment against all the posts. It is clear from the order of the respondent RDDE and it has rightly been pointed out by learned counsel for the petitioners that no fault was found in the enquiry held by the respondent RDDE in the appointment of the petitioners held on the basis of 1st round of counseling. In the circumstances, it is clear that the appointments of the petitioners made on the basis of first round counseling which as per the pleading of the petitioners was held on 6.10.2006, could not be cancelled, only on the ground that subsequent counseling held on 13.02.2007 and further steps taken by the Employment Unit was in breach of Rules. In the circumstances, this writ application is allowed. The impugned order of 5 the respondent RDDE, so far as it operates against the petitioners, is quashed. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioners in service on the basis of 1st counseling with all consequential benefits. Necessary orders in this regard must be issued by the respondents within two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Arvind/ (J. N. Singh, J.)