IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11068 of 2010 1.Vishram Kumar s/o Chhotu Yadav, resident of village- Manarsa, P.S. Belaganj, District- Gaya. 2. Kamlesh Prasad Singh, s/o Shankar Singh, resident of village- Samsera, P.S. Belaganj, District- Gaya. 3. Parmod Kumar, s/o Gagdish Yadav, resident of village- Suroundha, P.S. Belaganj, District- Gaya……….. Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. 5. The Commisioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 6. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 7. The District Superintendnet of Education, Gaya. 8. The Block Development Officer, Belaganj. 9. The Block Education Extension officer, Belaganj. 10.The Panchayat Secretary, Paibigha Panchayat, Belaganj 11. The Mukhiya, Paibigha Panchayat, Belaganj, Gaya 12. Hon’ble Member, District Teachers Appointment Tribunal, Gaya……………….. Respondents. ---------------------------------- with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.4628 of 2010 1.Umesh Sharma son of Ram Bhaju Sharma, resident of village Banshi Bigha, P.O. Paibigha, District. Gaya. 2. Renu Kumari, wife of Manoj Kumar, resident of village Raghuni Bigha, P.S. Paibigha O.P. (Belaganj), District-Gaya. ………………. Petitioners Versus 1.The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resouces Development Department, Bihar, Patna. 4. The Commissioner, Magadh Division, Gaya. 5. The District Magistrate, Gaya. 6. The District Superintendent of Education, Gaya. 7. The Block Development Officer, Belaganj, District- Gaya. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Belaganj, District- 2 Gaya. 9. The Mukhiya, Grampanachayat Raj, Paibigha, Block Belaganj, District- Gaya. 10.The Panchayat Secretary, Grampanchayat Raj Paibigha, Block-Belaganj, District- Gaya. 11. Hon’ble Member, District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Gaya. ……………… Respondents. For the petitioners: Mr. Devendra Kumar Sinha, Senior Advocate (In CWJC No.11068/2010): Mr. Vinok Kumar Advocate For the petitioners: Mr. Arun Kumar, Advocate (In CWJC No.4628/2010) Mr.Sanjay Kumar Sharma, Advocate Mr. Md.Hussamuddin Azad, Advocate For the State: Mr. Sanjay Kumar,A.C.to S.C.1 (In CWJC No.11068/2010) Mr. Rakesh Amastha, A.C. to AAG15 (In CWJC No.4628/2010) ---------------------------------- 6. 17.10.2011 Heard learned counsels for the petitioners and learned counsels for the State. In both the writ petitions the common order dated 29.1.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya has been challenged, by which the complaint filed by the petitioners against the order dated 24.4.2009 of the Block Education Extension Officer, Belaganj (Gaya) holding the appointment of the petitioners as illegal on the basis of the order dated 18.4.2009 passed in the file by the Block Development Officer, Belaganj, has been rejected. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the petitioners have been appointed as Shiksha Mitra in the Gram 3 Panchayat Paibigha in the year 2003. No complaint or objection was filed against their appointments at any time by any person before the then competent authority. Subsequently, it appears that the District Magistrate, Gaya by his letter dated 5.10.2007 addressed to the District Superintendent of Education directed to send the list of all working Shiksha Mitras to all the Block Development Officers and they were directed to enquire about the selection of the Shiksha Mitras and if the same was found to be illegal, they should be removed. Pursuant to the said direction of the District Magistrate, the Block Development Officer, Belaganj constituted a committee of four men by his memo dated 8.11.2007. The said committee enquired into the selection of Shiksha Mitras of Paibigha Gram Panchayat and came to the conclusion that the petitioners possessed lesser marks in the merit list and the three petitioners of the first writ petition having lesser marks in the merit list have been appointed in preference to those, who have got higher marks and the petitioners in the second writ petition had been appointed against the Reserve Category post in violation of the Rules of roster. Upon the said finding, the impugned orders were passed. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that the action of the authorities is arbitrary and in violation of Articles 4 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as also the various Circulars and Rules with respect to the appointment and removal of Shiksha Mithra/Panchayat Teachers. It is submitted that the petitioners were appointed as Shiksha Mitra long back in the year 2003 and in view of coming into force the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 with effect from 1.7.2006, thereafter their appointments could have been cancelled on the basis of a complaint made under Rule 18 of the Rules before the Block Development Officer and after 25.8.2008 before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority. It is urged that no such complaint by any aggrieved person was ever made in that regard to their appointments and thus, it was not open to the respondent authorities to suo motu enter into a fishing enquiry with respect to their appointments as Shiksha Mitra and reach any conclusion unfavourable to them. It is further submitted that even prior to 1.7.2006 under the Government Circulars any complaint regarding the irregularities and illegalities committed in the appointment process had to be made before the District Magistrate within thirty days of the appointment and there being no such complaint against the petitioners, the proceedings for declaring 5 their appointments illegal at a much later stage would be invalid and barred by law. It is further urged by learned counsels that the District Magistrate in the year 2007 had no jurisdiction to enquire into any such matter or to issue any direction to the Block Development Officer to make such enquiry as the Block Development Officer, at the relevant time, was the statutory authority under Rule 18 of the Rules for looking into any complaint and he could not have acted administratively with regard to any illegality or irregularity in the appointment process, that too of the year 2003. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that the appointments of the petitioners having not been found to be in accordance with the Rules by a committee of four officers constituted on the directions of the District Magistrate and the Block Development Officer, the impugned orders cancelling the said appointments ought not to be quashed. Other submissions have also been made by learned counsel for the State with regard to the irregularities or illegalities committed in the process of appointment. This Court does not think it fit to enter into the merit of the issues relating to the irregularities or illegalities 6 committed in the appointment of the petitioners. Suffice it to say that the petitioners were appointed in the year 2003 as Shiksha Mitra and for a long time after their appointments, neither any complaint was received from any other of the aggrieved candidates nor the authorities themselves had acted in the matter within a reasonable period; rather much belatedly in October, 2007, the District Magistrate took upon himself the task of making enquiry into the validity of the appointment of all Shiksha Mitras in the District which power has not been conferred upon him by the Government and specially after coming into force of the statutory Rules of 2006, it was not open to him to have entered into an area where he was not even a statutory authority appointed for looking into any such complaint regarding the appointment process and the same could have been only raised by an aggrieved candidate. The issue does not relate to any fraud or forgery with respect to the certificates of the petitioners on the basis of which, their appointments could have been reconsidered and action taken. Since it is purely related to the appointment process itself, it was not open to be challenged after such a long period of time that too by the administrative authority acting contrary to the scheme of the statutory Rules. 7 Thus, this Court finds sufficient force in the submissions of learned counsels for the petitioners. The writ applications are, accordingly, allowed and the impugned orders dated 29.1.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Gaya and the order dated 24.4.2009 passed by the Block Education Extension Officer, Belaganj as also the order dated 18.4.2009 passed on the file by the Block Development Officer, Belaganj are all quashed. The petitioners shall be entitled to all consequential benefits, including the salary for any period for which they have been kept out of service. VPS ( Ramesh Kumar Datta, J.)