Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Abdus Salam & Anr on 3 February, 2012
Author: T. Meena Kumari
Bench: T. Meena Kumari, Gopal Prasad
Patna High Court LPA No.1511 of 2010 (5) dt.03-02-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1511 of 2010
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6521 of 2009
======================================================
The State Of Bihar & Ors
.... .... Appellant/s
Versus
Abdus Salam & Anr
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Lakmesh Marvind(Ac-Sc20)
For the Respondent/s : Mr.
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE GOPAL PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. T. MEENA KUMARI)
5 03-02-2012The present appeal is preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge passed on 12.03.2010 in C.W.J.C. No. 6521/09.
The learned single Judge, by the above order, has allowed the writ application preferred by the first respondent which was filed being aggrieved by the inaction of the appellants in not issuing the appointment letter in pursuance of the selected panel. The case of the first respondent was that he was placed at serial No. 68 but after the counselling was over no appointment letter has been issued till date.
The said writ petition was opposed by the appellants on the ground that in view of the letter issued by the State on 30.11.2007 not to make any appointment, the candidates have not been issued appointment letters. The learned single Judge has observed that if Patna High Court LPA No.1511 of 2010 (5) dt.03-02-2012 selection process has been completed in the month of May, 2007 the rules must be completed by 30.11.2007 and could have issued the appointment letter as the panel was for the period of one year. With the above observation and direction to the respondents, in the writ petition to issue appointment letter in favour of the petitioner that is the first respondent within four weeks from the date of communication of the order, the writ petition was disposed of.
Aggrieved by the above direction, the respondent has preferred the present appeal.
The learned Government Advocate has contended that because of the letter of the State dated 30.11.2007, the appointment letter could not be issued though the advertisement was for the filling up the vacancy of 11203 candidates both trained and untrained teachers, under the primary schools, block schools and Zila Parishad schools. It is also contended that even though the counselling was held in the month of May, 2007, the appointment letters could not be issued because the District Education Officer was absent on one or the other day. Hence, appointment could not be made.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has contended that District Education Officer has not explained the delay in not issuing appointment letter for the period Patna High Court LPA No.1511 of 2010 (5) dt.03-02-2012 nearly six months from the date of counselling and in absence of the non-explanation forthcoming the action of the District Education Officer is highly deplorable. It is also contended that from the counter filed in the L.P.A. annexing Annexure-A it appears that a decision has been taken by the Zila Parishad and other members of the Committee to which the present appellant was also a member on 14.07.2010 to appoint the present petitioner first respondent herein. It is also contended that having taken a decision to appoint the first respondent (petitioner in the writ petition), the present appeal has been filed in the month of September, 2010. It is also brought to the notice of the this Court that the District Education Officer has preferred this appeal on behalf of the Zila Parishad though its executive officer i.e. Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur, making the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur as a second respondent in the appeal. It is very doubtful that there is authorization for filing such appeal on behalf of Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur.
Submission of the Government Advocate is that the Zila Parishad is an independent body and the Government has no control over the Zila Parishad and there is no mention that the authorization has been made in the affidavit sworn in by the District Education Officer, Bhagalpur, to substantiate that he has been authorized to prefer the appeal on behalf of Zila Parishad, Patna High Court LPA No.1511 of 2010 (5) dt.03-02-2012 Bhagalpur.
We also have occasion to go through the grounds of the appeal. The cause title shows that the Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur, represented by Executive Officer, Bhagalpur has been shown as appellant No. 4, the Deputy Development Commissioner, Bhagalpur, is shown as appellant No. 5, and the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur , has been shown as respondent No. 2. It is very surprising to know that the Executive Officer has preferred an appeal against the Chairman, Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. Affidavit field by Madhusudan Paswan did not show that he has been authorized to sworn the affidavit on behalf of the Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur. Moreso, it is also contended before us that the Zila Parishad is an independent body and it has its own entity and the State has no control over it. Neither the Zila Parishad nor any other person has preferred an appeal against the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
In absence of any reasons forthcoming for the delay of only six months in issuing the appointment letter whose certificates have been verified and the persons who are under the zone of selection, we are of the opinion that the action of the District Education Officer in preferring the appeal on behalf of the Zila Parishad showing the Chairman Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur as one of the respondents is uncalled for and it is serious laches on the Patna High Court LPA No.1511 of 2010 (5) dt.03-02-2012 part of the District Education Officer to prefer the appeal on behalf of the Zila Parishad without any authorization whatsoever as there is no material available before this Court, with reference to Annexure-A a decision has been taken by the Zila Parishad, Bhagalpur to which the appellant was also one of the signatories to appoint the first respondent which was subject to any order to be passed by this Court as on the date there is no appeal pending before this Court and the appeal was preferred in the month of September, 2010 but however, there was no order.
It is submitted by the learned counsel for the respondents that no orders of appointment has been issued. So far as the facts are concerned, the first respondent is shown at serial No. 68 in the selection list. There was no reason forthcoming in not issuing the appointment letters except the ground taken with reference to the letter issued by the State in the month of November, 2007. No explanation is also forthcoming for the delay caused for the period of five months for not issuing the appointment letter and in absence of such explanation it has to be observed that the action of the District Education Officer cannot be sustained under the law. Accordingly, the L.P.A. stands dismissed.
(T. Meena Kumari, J)
S.A.
Saif/- (Gopal Prasad, J)