IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16463 of 2010 RANDHIR KUMAR, son of Sri Sushil Kumar, resident of Village – Nawgarh, P.O. Asharhi, P S – Hilsa, District – Nalanda. Versus 1. The State of Bihar. 2. The District Magistrate, Nalanda. 3. The District Education Superintendent, Nalanda. 4. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 5. The Block Education Officer, Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 6. The Block Development Officer, Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 7. Anjani Kumar, Mukhiya of Asharhi Gram Panchayat, Block-Hilsa, District – Nalanda. 8. Kameshwar Prasad, Panchayat Sewak, Gram Panchayat Asharhi, Block – Hilsa, District – Nalanda. ----------- 02. 13.12.2010 The District Magistrate, Nalanda, respondent No.2, has passed an order dated 28.8.2009. Matter related to selection or appointment of certain Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and the legality thereof. There is a speaking order whose quashing is being sought in the present writ application by the petitioner. The sum essence of the outcome of the speaking order is that persons appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra by an exercise carried out by the concerned Mukhiya has been set to naught and the appointments terminated. Submission on behalf of the petitioner is that order passed by the District Magistrate, Nalanda is in teeth of the observations of the learned single Judge which are available on record as Annexures 15/1 and 15/2. The short facts are that for appointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra, Mukhiya of the village adopted a novel procedure of holding a written examination and drawing up of a merit list of such candidates based on the said written examination. Appointments came to be made on the basis of such exercise which became controversial as 2 well as subject matter of challenge. No doubt in yet another matter the learned single Judge was of a considered opinion that selection made on the basis of written test may support the system in finding more meritorious persons for the job but the question, which arises for consideration in this writ application is whether the learned single Judge was correct in his innovation in laying down a new procedure contrary to the policy and guidelines laid down by the State for such selection to be made on the post. There is no dispute that there is a detailed policy and guidelines which have been notified by the State of Bihar based on which appointments are to be made. It categorically lays down that appointments have to be made on the marks obtained by the candidates in their matriculation and intermediate examinations and that shall be the deciding factors for merits. It does not talk in terms of holding a competitive examination to decide the merit of the candidates. The merit list had to be drawn up on the basis of marks obtained by them in terms of the policy. It is a fact that in the present case the matter was earlier remitted to the District Magistrate to consider the matter in its entirety on its own merit because the learned single Judge did not express any opinion on the merits of the issue raised in the writ application which is evident from Annexure-14. The District Magistrate has gone into the details of the selection and the appointments and has come to a considered opinion that the appointment made in violation of the policy is no appointment 3 in the eyes of law. If an appointment has been made in direct conflict with the policy and guidelines laid down by the State of Bihar, an innovation in a particular Panchayat cannot be allowed even though the object of such innovation may be laudable. The Court having heard counsel for the petitioner and the State is of the considered opinion that it is not for the Courts to allow a new methodology or innovations contrary to the laid down policy and guidelines. It may have been possible to lay down guidelines where there was none in place but it is not so. If appointments have been made by authorities across the State by following the laid down procedure then there is no special reason to uphold a deviation made by a Mukhiya in breach of the policy laid down by the State of Bihar. Law is well settled that when there is a rule or policy in place and it lays down guidelines then they have to be followed. Any breach thereof goes to the root of such decision and it amounts to a nullity. The two authorities on the proposition are required to be noted i.e. in the case of Shri Mandir Sita Ramji v. Governor of Delhi and others AIR, 1974 SC 1868, and Hukum Chand Shyam Lal v. Union of India and others, AIR 1976 SC 789. In the case of Shri Mandir Sita Ramji (supra) it has been held that “When a procedure is prescribed by the legislature, it is not for the court to substitute a different one according to its notion of justice. When the legislature has spoken, the judges cannot afford to be wiser.” In the case of Hukum Chand Shyam Lal (supra) “it is 4 well settled that where a power is required to be exercised by a certain authority in a certain way, it should be exercised in that manner or not at all, and all other modes of performance are necessarily forbidden.” Whatever be the observation of the learned single Judge and the circumstances under which he passed the orders contained in Annexure-15/1 and 15/2, this Court has difficulty in accepting such a proposition in light of the settled principles above. If a policy has not been followed in its letter and spirit, breach thereof has to be interfered with and any selection made contrary to the policy goes to the root of the selection process and it requires to be interfered with. In the opinion of this Court, the District Magistrate has rightly held that the entire exercise of selection on the basis of written examination was an innovation of the Mukhiya concerned, contrary to the policy and the selection so made was no selection in the eyes of law. No interference is required with the impugned order. The writ application is dismissed. rkp ( Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.)