IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.7042 of 2001 SMT. SHAKUNTALA KUMARI VERMA Versus THE STATE OF BIHAR & ORS ----------- 7/ 19/05/2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as also Learned counsel for the Ad hoc Committee, Takht Sri Harmandirjee, Patna and Secretary, S.G.G.S. Girls High School, Patna City, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the High School). The petitioner was appointed as an assistant teacher in History and Civics by the Managing Committee of the High School, is a Government aided minority institution. In view of the Rules, approval of the appointment was sought from the erstwhile Vidyalaya Seva Board which granted the same on 1.6.1995. From Annexure-10 it appears that a complaint was made by a busy body before respondent No.6 one Shri Sunil Kumar, District Education Officer, Patna that the petitioner had been wrongly appointed without advertisement. The petitioner appeared before him and he acknowledges at paragraph-4 of his order dated 5.5.2001 that she produced a photo copy of the advertisement before him. The action of respondent no.6 thereafter 2 exercising his statutory powers can hardly be described as fair and reasonable, but smacks of arbitrariness and vendetta . This Court has no hesitation in holding that while exercising his statutory powers he became a person interested in the controversy before him and acted as a witness himself by visiting the Sinha Library in the town of Patna where archives are kept, to record a finding that on examination of the newspapers kept at the Sinha Library he did not find any such advertisement dated 16.1.2005 in the Hindi Newspaper ‘Aryabart’. He then directed cancellation of the appointment of the petitioner. Mr. Chakrapani, learned counsel appearing for the High School referring to its order dated 19.5.2001 submitted that he has acted simply on the directions of respondent No.6. It is indeed noteworthy that the impugned order dated 19.5.2001 was issued at the instance of respondent No.6 alone when the High School which issued the advertisement, does not controvert or deny issuance thereof. The law stands well settled that a Government functionary is not expected to become partisan and become a witness in a case himself which he is to decide. The extraordinary interest taken by respondent no.6 in the matter, leaves this Court baffled, 3 more so when allegations before him were made by a busy body. The order of respondent No.6 dated 5.5.2001 is not sustainable and is set aside. Consequently, the order dated 19.5.2001 also collapses. Annexure-8, the approval of the Vidyalaya Seva Board dated 1.6.1995 is held valid. The writ application succeeds with all consequential benefits to the petitioner to be complied within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. Before disposing the writ application, this Court considers it proper to observe that when a Government functionary acts in abuse of his powers, the Government is not bound by his actions. Respondent No.2 is, therefore, directed to examine the conduct of respondent No.6 and after due opportunity to him, if it is satisfied, proceed against him on the administrative side. Let this part of the order be complied with within a maximum period of 8 weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order by respondent No.2. List for orders, for compliance report on the latter only. KC ( Navin Sinha, J.)