IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.W. J.C. No. 11933 of 2008 Kumari Laxmi, D/O Sri Mukundeo Mishra, wife of Sri Dhrub Kumar Choudhary, resident of village Lagma, P.S. Sakatpur, district Darbhanga .. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Commissioner and Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna 2. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga 3. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Coordinator, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga 4. The Block Development Officer, Ghanshyampur, Darbhanga 5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Ghanshyampur, Darbhanga 6. The Mukhiya-cum-Chairman of the Jaideopatti Panchayat, P.S. Sakatpur, District Darbhanga 7. The Panchayat Secretary, Jaideopatti Panchayat, P.S. Sakatpur, district Darbhanga 8. The Panchayat Education Committee, Jaideopatti Panchayat, P.S. Sakatpur, district Darbhanga 9. The Head Master, Government Primary School, Lalapatti, Sakatpur, Didstrict Darbhanga .. Respondents **** For the petitioner .. Mr. B.K. Choudhary, Sr. Adv. With Mr. Kripa Nand Jha, Adv. For the State .. Mr. Arbind Kumar II, G.P. XX **** /5/ 05.03.2009 Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has filed this application for quashing the order vide Memo No. 308, dated 10.05.2008, passed by the Block Development Officer, Ghanshyampur, Darbhanga, directing the 2 Mukhiya/Panchayat Secretary to cancel the appointment of petitioner as Panchayat Teacher. Further, prayer is to quash the consequential order vide Memo No. 69, dated 15.05.2008, issued by Head Master, Government Primary School, Lalapatti, Sakatpur, Darbhanga, to the extent it related to the petitioner by which her appointment has been cancelled. 3. Petitioner’s case is that the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, issued letter no. 987, dated 03.10.2006, addressed to the Panchayat Secretary, Jaideo Patti Panchayat, directing to appoint 19 teachers under the provisions of Bihar Panchayat Teachers and Primary Teaches (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006. In this letter 16 posts of Hindi teachers and 3 posts of Urdu teachers were shown to be vacant. In this very letter roster point was also determined which started from roster point 66 up to 84. As per this letter five posts were to be filled by unreserved male, four posts for unreserved female, two posts for extremely backward male, two posts for extremely backward female, one post for scheduled castes male, two posts for scheduled castes female, one post for backward male, two posts for backward female and one more post for female in reserved category. Applications were invited by the Panchayat 3 Secretary of Jaideo Patti Panchayat from the eligible candidates. Several persons, including the petitioner, applied for the post in response to the vacancy for the post of teacher. Panel of eligible candidates was prepared and counseling was held from 10.10.2006 to 14.10.2006. Roster point 69, 73, 77 and 81 were for unreserved female candidates. Petitioner was selected against roster point 77 meant for unreserved female candidate. Selected candidates were issued selection letters individually on 20.01.2007. On the same day selection letter was issued to the petitioner also and she was asked to report to the Panchayat Office by 30.01.2007, failing which her candidature will be cancelled. Petitioner in compliance of the letter appeared and appointment letter was issued to her by Panchayat Secretary vide Memo No. 5, dated 25.01.2007. She was posted in Government Primary School, Lalapatti, where she joined on 27.01.2007. Counsel for the petitioner submits that intimation regarding appointment to all selected candidates was sent under certificate of posting at the address mentioned in their application as well as address submitted by them at the time of their counseling. In the intimation letter, it was stated that in case by 30th January, 2007, the selected candidates will not report their candidature will be 4 cancelled. One Punam Kumari, who was selected on unreserved female candidate post, did not report till 30.01.2007 the post was declared vacant and one Sheela Kumari was appointed in her place. Sheela Kumari resigned, as such, one Ranju Kumari was appointed on that post. Punam Kumari filed a complaint on 30.04.2007 before the Block Development Officer, Ghanshyampur, stating that persons having lesser mark than her have been appointed. Similar complaint was filed by Babita Kumari on 24.04.2007. On such complaints, the Block Development Officer in exercise of jurisdiction under Section 18 of 2006 Rules started enquiry. Petitioner's case is that no notice was issued to her regarding the belated enquiry, which was initiated much after the expiry of mandatory period for filing any objection. Report was submitted by the Block Development Officer on 10.05.2008 holding that petitioner’s appointment was in violation of the merit list. The Block Development Officer, Ghanshyampur, issued Memo No. 308, dated 10.05.2008, and as a consequence the Head Master of Government Primary School, Lalapatti, Sakatpur, district Darbhanga, vide Memo No. 69, dated 15.05.2008, informed the petitioner that her appointment has been cancelled. 5 4. The petitioner has challenged both the orders, i.e., order, contained in Memo No. 308, dated 10.05.2008, and order, contained in Memo No. 69, dated 15.05.2008. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the District Magistrate, Darbhanga, respondent no. 2, and the Block Development Officer, Ghanshyampur, respondent no. 4. In the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Block Development Officer is competent authority to conduct an enquiry on receiving complaints in the matter of irregularity committed in the process of appointment in the Panchayat Primary teacher by the appointment committee of Gram Panchayat. It has also been submitted that the order has been passed after hearing the parties and taking into consideration of relevant facts on record. Since, the order has been passed in exercise of jurisdiction under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules, there is no illegality and no reason for quashing the impugned order. It has been admitted in the counter affidavit that there were total nineteen vacancies, out of that three posts were for Urdu teachers and six posts for general teachers. Roster allotted by the Education Department was from roster point 66 to 84. Roster point 66 to 80 was for the general teachers and roster point 81 to 83 for Urdu teachers. In the unreserved female 6 category there were three posts. According to merit list, Sarita Kumari, Punal Devi and Babita Kumari should have been appointed, but, in their place Sarita Kumari, Kumari Laxmi and Sweta Kumari were appointed. Punam Devi, who was second in the merit list was denied appointment as she was never informed. She did not receive any appointment letter, as such, she did not join. 6. Counsel for the petitioner submits that Annexure 1 is the list of intimation letter issued to the selected candidates under certificate of posting. Letter was issued to Punam Devi at the same address which was given in her application as well as at the time of counseling. In the intimation letter of each and every one it was stated that if the candidate will not report within the time his/her candidature will be cancelled. Till the date of filing of objection, i.e., 13.04.2007, Punam Kumari did not file her objection. In her place one Sheela Kumari was appointed. When Sheela Kumari did not join, Ranju Kumari was appointed. So far petitioner is concerned, she was appointed considering her merit. There is no question of bringing any other person in her place. 7. It has also been submitted that Rule 9(kha)(vii) of 2006 Rules provides limitation for filing objection, which is one 7 week. No objection was filed, as such, Block Development Officer was not competent to entertain any objection. In reply to this, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that Rule 9 relates to filing any objection in the matter of selection panel. Punam Devi was selected and appointed. No time limit has been fixed under Rule for filing any objection at the stage of appointment, as such, her objection could have been entertained at any time. 8. I do not think that objection can be entertained in any mater beyond a reasonable time. All other candidates to whom appointment letters were issued reported within time. Regarding intimation, it was sent to all under certificate of posting. There is no confusion in the address of Punam Devi, in spite of that if she did not receive the intimation, as claimed by her, after expiry of the period mentioned in the intimation letter for reporting to join could not have been extended. On the basis of such intimation letter right accrued in favour of the person who is next in the panel. Person next in the panel was asked to join. She resigned than the next one was appointed. In this case if the Block Development Officer was of the view that the authority should have waited for Punam Devi, in that case person, who was subsequently appointed on account of non-joining of Punam 8 Devi, only her appointment should have been cancelled. Petitioner was nowhere in picture. 9. Petitioner has filed reply to the counter affidavit, wherein it has been stated that Punam Devi did not join at Jaideopatti as it is approximately thirty kilometers far away from her residence, which is at Rajnagar. 10. I find that the petitioner was appointed observing the reservation roster as well as the merit list, no complaints was made by any one. After four months suddenly Punam Devi filed an objection. Thereafter, Babita Kumari also filed an objection. Such objections were filed much after expiry of the mandatory period. Babita Kumari was not sent any intimation letter as her application itself was found defective. In spite of that the Block Development Officer in the impugned order has said that Babita Kumari should have been appointed having higher marks. 11. Rule 18 is there under which the Block Development Officer could exercise jurisdiction, but, it is necessary that only such objections should be entertained, which are filed by a genuine candidate within a reasonable period. Reasonable period means that once selection is made and appointment letters issued in that case it could not be more than thirty days, in any case. 9 After two months or one year, if some one files complaints, such complaint should not be entertained. In the present case, so far petitioner’s appointment is concerned, it was properly done observing reservation roster, merit list she joined and was discharging her duties, her appointment could not have been cancelled. 12. Accordingly, the part of the order passed by the Block Development Officer where it is held that petitioner, Kumari Laxmi, was appointed in an irregular manner is quashed. The order passed by the Head Master, contained in Memo No. 69, dated 15.05.2008, cancelling the appointment of the petitioner is also quashed. 13. This application is allowed. 14. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential benefits. Order must be passed by the respondents within three weeks from the date of production/communication of the order. Cp:2/S.A. ( Mridula Mishra, J. )