IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.1734 of 2011 Bechan Jha, Son of Sri Indradeo Jha, Resident of Village Brahmapura, P.S. Arer, Dist. Madhubani. ------- Petitioner Versus 1. The Union of India through Ministry of Human Resources Development, New Delhi. 2. The Secretary, Ministry Human Resources Development, Government of India, New Delhi. 3. The Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jawaharlal Nehru Campus, New Delhi. 4. The Assistant Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Regional Office Khanapara Jawahar Nagar, Gauhari (Assam). 5. The Deputy Commissioner, Kendriya Vidyalaya Sangathan, Jawahar Lal Nehru University Campus, New Mehrauli Road, New Delhi. --------- Respondents ----------- For the Petitioner :- Mr. A.K. Pathak For the Respondents :- Mr. G.K. Agarwal ----------- P R E S E N T HON’BLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ---------- J U D G M E N T T. Meena Kumari, J. & Mihir Kumar Jha, J. Heard Mr. A.K. Pathak, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. G.K. Agarwal, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. Assailing the impugned order passed by the Tribunal, Mr. Pathak has submitted that the Tribunal has committed an error of record in holding that the petitioner had not produced all his necessary documents and certificates relating to his educational 2 qualification on 10.7.1980 for being empanelled for promotion as a Trained Graduate Teacher (TGT). He would further submit that the view taken by the Tribunal that the life of the panel prepared on 10.6.1980 for promotion as TGT had expired on 10.6.1981 is contrary to the Central Government decision providing interalia that the life of such panel would continue till all such posts of TGT for which the panel was prepared would get filled up. He has concluded his submission but submitting that as there is no dispute that the petitioner had appeared in future for earning his promotion as TGT on 10.6.1980 and his name was at serial no.2 of the panel, the Tribunal ought to have quashed the order passed by the authority on 29.10.1984 rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his promotion as TGT on the ground of expiry of the life of the panel. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand while supporting the view taken by the Tribunal in the impugned order, has submitted that as a matter of fact, the 3 Original Application (OA) filed by the petitioner was itself not maintainable, inasmuch as, the petitioner had assailed the order dated 29.10.1084 by filing OA No. 46 of 2000 well after sixteen years of the impugned order. It has further been contended that the plea of the petitioner that he had submitted his certificate for verification on 10.7.1980 is incorrect, inasmuch as, there is no documentary proof of the petitioner having ever submitted such certificate after his application filed at the time of interview on 10.6.1980 undertaking to do so. The counsel has also submitted that when the petitioner had not submitted his certificate relating to his educational qualification, his empanelment for promotion in TGT was itself misconceived, inasmuch as, there was no finally approved panel wherein the name of the petitioner had figured at serial no.2. 4. In the light of the pleadings on record and the aforementioned contentions by both the parties, it has to be held that the view taken by the Tribunal in dismissing the OA filed by the petitioner does not suffer 4 from any error. 5. The claim of the petitioner that he was appointed as a Primary School Teacher in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan on 21.10.1974 and was absorbed as a Primary Teacher on 23.6.1978, his name was also empanelled for TGT when applications were invited in the year 1980 from amongst all the departmental staffs and teachers possessing the prescribed qualification of TGT is itself shrouded in mystery. In this connection, it is the finding recorded by the Tribunal that when the petitioner was called for interview for his empanelment as TGT on 2.6.1980, the petitioner had failed to produce his relevant certificates relating to his educational qualification and in support of this stand, the Tribunal has relied on the letter of the petitioner himself dated 1.6.1980 addressed to the Chairman of the Selection Committee, wherein, he had prayed further time to file certificate on a later date. 6. If the petitioner, therefore, claims that he had filed such certificates of his educational qualification on 10.7.1980, the 5 same has to be supported by any documentary evidence of its being filed before the Chairman of the Selection Committee. Unfortunately, the petitioner did not produce any such document in his OA nor in fact he had claimed to file them on 10.7.1980 in the OA No.46 of 2000 when it was instituted in the Tribunal in the year 2000. It is only when that the respondents in their written statement to OA No. 46 of 2000 had taken a specific stand that the petitioner had never produced his certificate relating to his educational qualification that in the rejoinder the petitioner for the first came out with a date of 10.7.1980 on which he had claimed to have filed/produced his certificate relating to his educational qualification. 7. The Tribunal has rightly not relied on such statement of the petitioner which was not supported by any documentary proof. The Tribunal virtually has been exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in view of the provision made in the Central Administrative Tribunal Act, 1985 6 wherein the pleadings, capable of being supported by documentary evidence, has to be also produced in the OA itself. Admittedly, the petitioner had never raised this plea in the OA that he had produced such certificate on 10.7.1980 and when a belated plea was taken in the rejoinder, that too was not supported with any document. In that view of the matter, the petitioner could not have established his claim as with regard to producing his certificate of educational qualification on 10.7.1980. 8. By now, it is well settled that if before a court/tribunal the case has to be decided on the basis of affidavits, the evidence in support of facts stated on such affidavit have to be backed by documents. Reference in this connection may be made to the judgment in the case of Bharat Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. and Dallu Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. and Nathu Ram & Ors. Vs. State of Haryana & Ors. reported in AIR 1988 SC 2181 wherein the pleadings in a writ petition was sought to be explained in the following manner:- “When a point which is ostensibly a 7 point of law is required to be substantiated by facts, the party raising the point, if he is the writ petitioner, must plead and prove such facts by evidence which must appear from the writ petition and if he is the respondent, from the counter-affidavit. If the facts are not pleaded or the evidence in support of such facts is not annexed to the writ petition or to the counter-affidavit, as the case may be, the Court will not entertain the point. There is a distinction between a pleading under the Civil P.C. and a writ petition of a counter-affidavit. While in a pleading, that is, a plaint or a written statement, the facts and not evidence are required to be pleaded, in a writ petition or in the counter- affidavit not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of such facts have to be pleaded and annexed to it.” 9. Thus, we have no hesitation in holding that the petitioner had miserably failed in establishing this fact before the Tribunal that he had produced his certificate of educational qualification on 10.7.1980. The findings of the Tribunal, therefore, on this aspect, does not suffer from any error. 10. We have also carefully examined the averments made by the petitioner in the OA and from that also it is quite clear that the 8 petitioner has chosen to assail an order dated 29.10.1984 by filing the OA after almost sixteen years of passing of the order by the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan rejecting the claim of the petitioner for his promotion as a TGT. It is true that the petitioner had filed the writ application, CWJC No. 479 of 1985 challenging the aforementioned order dated 29.10.1984, but this Court had not interfered with the same and had merely disposed of the writ application on 27.3.1985 with an observation that the authority of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan may consider the representation filed by the applicant, if not already considered. The petitioner thereafter had remained completely silent for next thirteen years before filing his another writ application before this Court in CWJC No.8514 of 1988 seeking a direction for his appointment/promotion as TGT which also was disposed of on 26.10.1999 with a liberty to the petitioner to move before appropriate forum by filing appropriate application. The present OA in fact was filed in the year 2000 pursuant to the aforementioned observations 9 of this Court in the order dated 26.10.1999 but, then, the fact remains that the relief sought therein by the petitioner was for quashing of an order passed on 29.10.1984. In terms of Section 19 r/w Section 21 of the Administrative Tribunal Act, there is a period of limitation of one year from the date of passing of the impugned order. The petitioner had never sought condonation of such delay and, therefore, in our considered opinion, the Tribunal ought to have not entertained the OA filed by the petitioner in the year 2000 challenging the order dated 29.10.1984. 11. The Tribunal in fact has been more than liberal to the petitioner in considering his case on merit. We too in order to do complete justice between the parties have also carefully perused the communications made by the petitioner to the various authorities of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan and from them we have found that the name of the petitioner was never included in the panel of TGT prepared pursuant to the interview held on 2.6.1980. As a matter of 10 fact, when the petitioner had raised this issue before the Tribunal after twenty years, the authorities were perfectly justified in taking a plea that such an old panel of the year 1980 could not be traced out. It will however be manifest from the representation filed by the petitioner dated 12.3.2010 (Annexure-13 to the writ application) that the petitioner has drawn a mere presumption on the basis of the impugned order dated 29.10.1984 that his name was earlier included in 1980 panel, inasmuch as, the concerned authority had held that the petitioner could claim the post of TGT as the life panel being of one year only had already come to an end. In fact the authority on the said communication to the petitioner dated 29.10.1984 had never admitted that his name was included in the panel. 12. There is no direct proof muchless a copy of the panel available with the petitioner which can show that the name of the petitioner was ever empanelled in the year 1980. In fact, when the petitioner had not produced his certificate of educational 11 qualification, his being mere interviewed would not have led to automatic inclusion of his name also in the panel. It is this aspect of the matter which has been all along reiterated by the concerned authorities of Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan that in the select panel of 1980 for the post of TGT, the name of the petitioner was not included. 13. Thus, having given some serious and anxious consideration to the materials on record, this Court will have no option but to affirm the findings recorded by the Tribunal in the impugned order. 14. As a matter of fact, it is really a stale matter wherein the petitioner now having already retired from service is trying to seek benefit of his appointment/promotion as TGT from the year 1980 whereas he had all along worked in his entire service career only as a Teacher in primary school of the Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghatan. If the petitioner, therefore, had himself slept over his right for a period of twenty years before moving the Tribunal, he had only to thank himself. The unexplained delay and laches on 12 the part of the petitioner for seeking relief of his appointment/TGT of nearly twenty years was in fact itself good enough to reject his stale claim of T.G.T. 15. Thus for the reasons recorded above, we find no merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Patna High Court Dated 25th of March, 2011 NAFR/Ashwini/Rishi (T. Meena Kumari, J.) (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)