IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No 14903 of 2009 1. ABHAY KUMAR S/O SRI AWADESHKIMAR VERMA R/O VILL SAIDPUR, P.O AFFOR, P.S. KHIARA, DISTT- SARAN, BIHAR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR,PATNA 2. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR , PATNA 3. THE SPECIAL SECRETARY- CUM- DIRECTOR , PRIMARY EDUCATION , HUMAN RESOURCE DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT BIHAR, PATNA 4. THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE SARAN 5. THE DISTRICT SUPERINTENDENT OF EDUCATION SARAN, BIHAR 6. THE REGIONAL EDUCATION OFFICER CHAPRA SADAR, SARAN 7. THE BLOCK DEVELOPMENT OFFICER NAGRA, SARAN 8. THE BLOCK EDUCATION EXTENSION OFFICER(B.E.E.O) NAGRA, SARAN ----------- 4 28.07.2010 The District Superintendent of Education and District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Saran at Chapra are present pursuant to earlier orders of this Court. Counter affidavit on behalf of the District Superintendent of Education and the District Magistrate –cum- Collector has been filed so also counter affidavit on behalf of the present Panchayat Secretary. Heard the parties. The writ petition is being disposed of at this stage itself with their consent. The petitioner had applied for selection as a Shiksha Mitra in the year, 2005. He was selected. Subsequently, complaints were made and the matter was then enquired into by the Block Development Officer (BDO) who, in terms of Rule 18 of the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Conditions of Service and Appointment) Rules, 2006 was the designated authority to enquire into matters of appointment of Panchayat Teachers. By this time, petitioner had been working as Shiksha Mitra and was duly absorbed as Panchayat Teacher. BDO, upon enquiry, found that petitioner was wrongly selected. He further found that in the entire 2 process of selection, reservation roster was totally ignored. All this was manipulated obviously by the then Panchayat Secretary and members of the Selection Committee. Thus, the BDO set aside the entire selection process including the selection of petitioner and it is this which brought the petitioner to this Court. Perusing the order of the BDO, this Court initially stayed the impugned order and directed that the petitioner will continue in service. Counter affidavits have been filed and perused. Counter affidavits disclose a different story altogether. From counter affidavits and the pleadings, it is clear that petitioner had made application with his Intermediate marksheet showing his marks as 558. It is that marksheet that was sent by Mukhiya for verification. In respect of that marksheet, the report was received that the marksheet was genuine but still in the impugned order, BDO noted that the marksheet was found to be forged and selection of petitioner wrong. This apparently is in clear contradiction to the facts, as noted above. On close perusal of the counter affidavits and the original register as produced before this Court today, it is apparent that petitioner was not selected on basis of any forged marksheet but on a wrong mention of mark in the merit list and the register, as maintained by the Panchayat concerned. The register showed that petitioner had secured 713 marks at Intermediate level. It is on basis of these marks that the petitioner was ranked as No 1 in the selection list and selected. There is no comparison between the marksheet as filed by petitioner which showed 558 marks and the marks as per the tabulation which was done by the then Panchayat Secretary which showed his marks 713. These interpolations or wrong entry was not by the petitioner or in 3 petitioner’s mark but in the Panchayat register by the Panchayat Secretary. However, the fact remains that petitioner got wrongly selected on basis of interpolated marks. Thus, the selection of the petitioner was wrong. Mr Anand K Ojha appearing on behalf of petitioner submits that BDO’s order suffers from vires of principles of natural justice as well as causing stigma by observing that petitioner had got appointment on basis of forged marksheet. So far as forged marksheet is concerned, as pointed out above, that is wrong because as a matter of fact, the marksheet was not found to be forged. What was found to be forged or interpolated was the tabulation register of the Panchayat wherein wrong entries were made by the Panchayat Secretary. Thus, to that extent, petitioner cannot be penalised and the order of BDO cannot be sustained. Now we come to the question of principles of natural justice. In my view, principle of natural justice is not an unruly horse which can land and jump at any place. Its application has to be confined to the facts of the case and the present case is not one in which principles of natural justice could be invoked. In the case of S L Kapoor –Versus- Jagmohan and Others, AIR 1981 Supreme Court 136, this is what the Apex Court had to say in paragraph -24 of the reports … “24. … … … Where on the admitted or indisputable facts only one conclusion is possible and under the law only one penalty is permissible, the Court may not issue its writ to compel the observance of natural justice, not because it is not necessary to observe natural justice but because Courts do not issue futile writs. … … …” 4 Here, the petitioner having been wrongly selected, on these admitted facts, the result can only be one that is the petitioner must step out of the selection. It would have been totally different if petitioner had contradicted that his selection was not on basis of 713 marks but 558 marks secured. That cannot be the case because if that were the marks, petitioner would have no chance of ranking in the merit list at all. Thus, considering the facts aforesaid, the writ petition merits no consideration. It is dismissed. Interim order withdrawn. Before parting, I would like to observe that the entire game appears to be orchestrated by the then Panchayat Secretary. He maintains the records and was the custodian of records. It is said that it is he who drew up the list and finalise the same and ultimately got it approved by the various Departments of the Panchayat. In that view of the matter, as disclosed by the District Magistrate –cum- Collector, Saran, he has been put under suspension and a disciplinary proceeding started for this misdemeanour apart from others. I, accordingly, direct that the disciplinary proceedings be concluded expeditiously but not later than three months from today. As the matter is too serious to be treated casually and such derelictions, if not met with serious consequences, would only encourage corruption and nepotism. The proceeding must, therefore, take precedent over other matters. M.E.H./ (Navaniti Prasad Singh)