IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.2209 of 2008 1.REKHA KUMARI D/o Yadunandan Prasad Singh,resident of At & P.O. P.S.Kauwakol,Dist. Nawadah 2.Manju DeviD/o Binay Kumar,resident of Village Kewali, P.S.Kauwakol,Dist.Nawada. 3.Geeta Kumari D/o Chandrika Prasad Singh,resident of Village Sindhana P.S.Kauwako,Dist.Nawadah. 4.Sushma Kumari D/o Ram Praveen Prasad Singh,resident of village Jhaluki P.O.Pakribarawan Badhauli,District Nawada. 5.Rybi Kumari D/o Saryu Prasad,residentof At & P.O. P.S.Kauwakol District Nawada 6.Rajni Gupta D/o Raj Kumar Prasad,resident of At Gola Road, P.O.& P.S. Dist.Nawada. 7.Prabha Kumari D/o Kamal Kishore Prasad,resident of Village Chahal, P.O. Phuldih Dist.Nawada. 8.Pooja Singh D/o Anirudh Singh, resident of Shekhodeora, P.O. & P.S.Kauwakol,District Nawada. 9.Rubi Kumari D/o Nawal Kishore Singh, resident of Village Charaul, P.O.Phuldih District Nawada. 10.Punam Kumar D/o Deo Narayan Singh,resident of Village Charaul, P.O.Phuldih P.S.Kauwakol Dist,Nawada. 11.Veenita Kumari D/o Arbind Das,resident of Village Mananiyatri P.O. Leeladih P.S.Kauwako,Dist.Nawada. 12.Putul Devi D/o Raj Kumar Sinha, resident of village Barnama Gopalpur P.S.Warsaliganj Dist.Nawada 13.Neerjala Kumari D/o Dwarika Prasad Yadav,resident of Village Lalpur P.S.Kauwakol Dist.Nawada 14.Manjusa D/o Lootan Prasad,resident of village Rajambba P.O.Bhadokhra Dist.Nawada 15.Rupam Kumari D/o Kapildeo Yadav,resident of Village Sandalpur P.O.Munger, Dist.Munger. 16.Priyanka Priyam D/o Bharat Yadav, resident of Village P.O. and P.S.Khaira Dist.Jamui. 17.Renu Kumari daughter of Rajendra Kumar Choudhary, resident of Village Kumbhi P.O. & P.S.Warsaliganj,District Nawadah 18.Bindi kumari, D/o Dinesh Kumar Choudhary,resident of Village Newajgah P.O. & P.S. Warsaliganj Dist.Nawada 19.Bijendra Ram son of Karu Ram resident of Village Najalli Bigha P.O. Kewali P.S.Kauwakol District Nawadah. 19.Bijendra Ram son of Karu Ram,resident of village Najalli Bigha P.O. Kewali P.S.Kauwakol Dist.Nawada 20.Anil Kumar son of Jago Mahto,resident of village Bhaluahi P.O.Kewali P.S.Kauwakol,Dist.Nawada 21.Birendra Kumar son of Nanhku Rabidas,resident of village Garobigha P.O. & P.S.Hisua District Nawada 22.Keshwari Khatoon D/o Md.Jamiluddin,resident of village Ishlampur P.O.Madhurapur P.S.Kauwakol District Nawada. 23.Sakila Anjoom, D/o Abul Kalam resident of Village Tikodih P.O.Madhurapur P.S.Kauwakol Dist.Nawada 24.Rafia Sahin son of Late Md.Sakil Aham,resident of village Bareo P.O.Nemdarganj District Nawada 25.Tarana Khatoon D/o Md.Sahabuddin,resident of At & P.O. P.S.Kauakol District Nawada 26.Rajeev Kumar son of Chandrabhushan Kumar resident of village & P.O. Sandalpur,District Munger 27.Bambam Kumar Singh son of Ramyatan Singh resident of village Sundari P.O.Dumri District Nawada. 2 28.Praveen Kumar son of Yugal Mistri, resident of Village Khanapur P.O. & P.S.Warsaliganj Dist.Nawada 29.Kumari Shushma Latea D/o Sachidanand Singh, resident of Village Charaul P.O.Nawadih P.S.Kauwakol Dist.Nawada. 30.Kamal Nayan Kant son of Late Vijay Kumar resident of village Charaul P.O.Nawadih P.S.Kauwakol Dist.Nawada Versus 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.The Principal Secretary,Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar,Patna 3.Project Director,Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan,Government of Bihar,Patna. 4.The District Magistrate,Nawadah 5.The Deputy Development Commissioner,Nawada 6.The District Superintendent of Education cum District Programme Coordinator, Sarwa Shiksha Abhiyan,Government of Bihar, Patna. 7.The Subdivisional Education Officer,Nawada 8.The Pramukh,Kauwakol Panchayat Samiti cum Chairman Prakhand Shikshak Selection Committee, Kauwakol,Nawada 9.The Block Education Extension Officer cum Secretary prakhand Shikshak Selection Committee, Kauwakol Nawadah 10.The Block Development Officer,Kauwakol Nawadah cum Member Selection Committee. ----------- 3 20.2.2009. Heard counsel for the petitioners and the State. Counter affidavit has been filed and reply to the counter affidavit has also been filed. There are 30 petitioners in this writ application. They all were appointed as untrained Prakhand Sikshak in Kauwakol Block against the vacancies advertised vide letter no.753 dated 28.8.2006. Total 101 vacancies for the post of Prakhand Teachers were advertised which include 65 posts of general teachers, 25 of physical teachers and 11 posts of Urdu teachers. Petitioners case is that altogether 8012 candidates applied in pursuance of the advertisement for the post of Prakhand teachers in Kauwakol Block. The reservation roster were finalized by government vide Memo no.1457 dated 15.9.2006 and so far roster 3 point for Kauwakol block is concerned it started from Sl.No.1689 up to 1789. The Selection committee which consisted of Pramukh Panchayat Samiti as its Chairman, Block Education Extension Officer as Secretary, Block Development Officer as member and one member nominated by Shiksha Samiti of Panchayat Samiti, prepared a selection panel of candidates. As provided under Rule initially appointment of trained candidates were to be made and only on the remaining posts untrained candidates were to be considered for appointment. Petitioners case is that in the district of Nawada as well as in the entire State of Bihar 11.11.2007 and 18.11.2007 was the date fixed for counseling for the post of Prakhand Sikshak and Panchayat teachers. Same candidate had applied at several places as such it was not humanly possible for them to participate for counseling at the same time in different prakhand/Panchayat. Approximately 500 candidates appeared for counseling on the date fixed for it and accordingly panel was prepared and published. So far panel is concerned no objection was raised by any one. Sixty untrained treachers were appointed in the month of January 2009. Remaining 40 posts were to be filed, by candidates in reserved category and two posts were to be filled on compassionate ground. 36 posts were filled by reserved category candidates which included unreserved female,economically backward class, female Scheduled tribe, female scheduled castes and disabled scheduled caste. Two posts were filled by candidates, to be appointed on compassionate ground. Petitioners case is that they were appointed under 4 untrained female category, on the basis of their position in the merit list. They joined their posts, started functioning and paid their salary till December 2007. Thereafter some complaints were received by the District Magistrate and an enquiry was conducted by the District Superintendent of Education, who found allegations made in complaint incorrect and baseless. The Deputy Development Commissioner without considering the report submitted by the District Superintendent of Education, Nawada directed for further enquiry by Subdivisional Education Officer, Nawada. Petitioners were not given any notice to appear and participate in the enquiry. Finally on the basis of the enquiry report submitted by the Subdivisional Education Officer, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Nawada vide Memo no.321 dated 21.12.2007 has cancelled appointment of all untrained teachers of Kauwakol Block. In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the Subdivisional Education Officer, Nawada had conducted enquiry and found that candidates have been appointed without participating in counseling, some candidates appointed on the basis of forged certificates, some persons appointed without roster clearance and persons having lessor marks appointed ignoring candidates with higher marks. On perusal of the impugned order What I find that complaints were made by Rita Kumari, Abinash kumar and Rajendra Prasad. Rita Kumari alleged that she was not allowed to participate in the counseling on 13.4.2007. In the writ application it is mentioned 5 that counseling were done on 11.11.2006 and 18.11.2006. This has not been denied in the counter affidavit. This means that no counseling was held on 13.4.2007. Entire process of appointment was complete by January 2007. In this view allegations of complainant, was baseless and not sufficient for canceling appointments made earlier. Abinash kumar has made specific allegations against appointment of Md. Yunus, Rubi Kumari, and Raj Lakshmi, who are not petitioners. Archna has made specific allegation against Y.N.Singh that though his name was not in the merit list, he was appointed. Y.N. Singh is not petitioner before this court. Rajendra Prasad has made specific allegation against Md. Ajad that having lower percentage of marks, he was appointed. Persons against whom specific allegations have been made, are not petitioners. There was no reason for canceling appointment of such candidates, against whom no complaints were received. There is no finding that petitioners were appointed in violation of reservation roster or ignoring merit list. It is also apparent from the counter affidavit as well as the statement made in the writ application that petitioners were never noticed to explain the circumstances in which they were appointed. The impugned order was passed behind their back, in violation of rule of natural justice. Considering all these facts I find that only such appointments could have been reviewed against which specific complaints were made. Only those persons should have been terminated from service whose appointments, after enquiry would 6 have been found to be made either in violation of reservation roster or merit list. General and sweeping order of termination of all those persons who were appointed as untrained teachers, in complete observance of merit list and reservation roster should not have been terminated specially when no allegations were made against petitioners appointment and no irregularities were found against their appointment. Considering these facts the order impugned so far it relates to petitioners is quashed. Respondents are directed to re- instate petitioner with all consequential benefits. This application is allowed. Sss/- (Mridula Mishra, J)