Patna High Court - Orders
Lata Kumari vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 23 December, 2014
Author: Kishore Kumar Mandal
Bench: Kishore Kumar Mandal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11568 of 2010
======================================================
1. Lata Kumari D/O Sri Dinesh Jha R/O Mohalla- Kabilpur (Laheriasarai),
P.S.- Bahadurpur, Distt.- Darbhanga
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Director, Primary Education Human Resources Department,
Government Of Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Darbhanga
4. The District Superintendent of Education, Darbhanga
5. The Block Development Officer, Hayaghat, Distt.- Darbhanga
6. The Block Education Extension Officer Hayaghat, Darbhanga
7. The Member, District Teacher Employment Tribunal, Darbhanga
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Chandanpatti, Darbhanga
9. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Chandanpatti, Darbhanga
10. Priyanka Kumari W/O Sri Kumar Rakesh Presently Posted As
Panchayat Teacher, Primary School, Hazipur, Hayaghat, Darbhanga
11. Madhu Kumari W/O Sri Shiv Sundar Chaudhary R/O Village + P.O.-
Pandasarai (Laheriasarai), P.S.- Laheriasarai, Distt.- Darbhanga
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Satish Chandra Jha 3
For the Respondent No.11 : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh Sr. Counsel
For the State : AC to AAG-5
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KISHORE KUMAR
MANDAL
ORAL ORDER
8 23-12-2014The writ petitioner has impugned the order dated 06.07.2010 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Laheriasarai, Darbhanga ( hereinafter called 'the Authority') in Complaint case no. 470 of 2009. The writ application was considered and allowed by order dated 13.08.2010. Aggrieved thereby the respondent no. 11 filed writ appeal which was disposed of and the writ application was Patna High Court CWJC No.11568 of 2010 (8) dt.23-12-2014 2/6 remitted to this Court for fresh consideration and disposal after hearing the respondent no.11. That is how the writ application has been listed for consideration.
Heard Mr. Satish Chandra Jha no.3 for the petitioner, Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh learned Senior Counsel for the respondent no.11 and AC to AAG-5 for the State. Respondent no.11 has filed a counter affidavit. Rejoinder thereto has been filed by the writ petitioner.
The petitioner participated in the selection process undertaken by the selection committee for appointment as Panchayat Teacher held in the year 2007. On being selected she was appointed. The respondent no.11, challenged her selection before the Block Development Officer who was the Authority to consider such grievance under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006 ( for short 'the Rules'). An enquiry was made into the complaint by the Block Development Officer whereafter the complaint of respondent no.11 was rejected. Upon constitution of the Authority as per the amended provision of the Rules she filed the appeal before the Authority and also before the learned Lokayukta, Bihar complaining about the illegal selection of the writ petitioner. The Authority heard the matter and after Patna High Court CWJC No.11568 of 2010 (8) dt.23-12-2014 3/6 examining the same by an order dated 30.11.2009 (Annexure-2) dismissed the complaint. In the complaint made before the Lokayukta certain enquires were made by the respondent-District Magistrate who submitted a report stating that selection of the writ petitioner was proper. However, the office of the Lokayukta by an order dated 04.02.2010 passed in Lok (Shikchha) 579/2007 directed the Authority to re-open and re-hear the matter. Pursuant thereto the Authority by the impugned order dated 06-07-2010 (Annexure-1) reviewed its order passed on 30-11-2009 and cancelled the appointment of the writ petitioner and directed one Priyanka Kumari who was not even the applicant before the Tribunal to be recommended in place of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the first order of the Tribunal dated 30.11.2009 itself was final which is not subject to appeal or superintendence of any authority except by way of superintendence which the high Court exercises under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. He further submits that the Authority being a statutory quasi judicial authority had no power of review. The impugned order by which the earlier order was reviewed and the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher was cancelled is, therefore, wholly without jurisdiction.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11568 of 2010 (8) dt.23-12-20144/6
Per Contra, it has been urged on behalf of the respondent no.11 that the post in question was reserved for BC (F) category whereas petitioner belongs to unreserved category. She, therefore, cannot be appointed on the post which was reserved for BC (F) category. According to her, respondent no.10 also belonged to unreserved female category and having secured more marks than the writ petitioner she ought to have appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher against unreserved category and the post vacated by the writ petitioner would fall for selection of respondent no.11. The petitioner being candidate of unreserved category could not have occupied the post which was reserved for BC(F) category. In sum and substance, the case of the respondent no.11 is that the post under unreserved category ought to have been filled up by respondent no.10 and the post held by the writ petitioner should have been filled up by the respondent no.11. The respondents having not acted in the aforesaid manner committed an illegality. Relying on AIR 1999 SC 2583 ( M.C. Mehta vs. Union of India & Ors.) in particular, in para 19 thereof it has been contended that if quashing of the order would result in restoration of illegal order then this Court should not exercise the jurisdiction.
Having considered the submissions made at Bar, in Patna High Court CWJC No.11568 of 2010 (8) dt.23-12-2014 5/6 my considered opinion, once the authority decided the matter on the complaint made by the respondent no.11 it becomes functus officio. It is to be borne in mind that the Authority is a statutory quasi judicial functionary. The Rule provisions provide no appeal or review thereagainst. There is no provision in the Rule especially conferring the authority with the power of review. In such view of the matter, the order of the authority would be final subject to the judicial review of this Court and not by any other authority. In this context, this Court may usefully refer to the notification no. 3716 dated 23.10.2008 issued by the government in the Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, whereby having constituted the Authority the State Government provided for various functions and matters related to the Authority. In Clause- Kh (xv) it is unambiguously pointed out that the order passed by the Authority is final and is not appealable before any superior authority. The Apex Court in the case of Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others since reported in AIR 1981 SC 606 held that power of review is a creature of the statute and in absence thereof no such power of review exist with the statutory quasi judicial authority. It is by now a well-settled principles of law. Furthermore, from perusal of the order dated 30.11.2009 Patna High Court CWJC No.11568 of 2010 (8) dt.23-12-2014 6/6 (Annexure-2) passed by the Authority it is evident that the allegation of respondent no.11 was specifically inquired into by the Block Development Officer wherein the allegation was not found substantiated.
In that view of the matter, the Authority having decided the case it could not be reviewed by the Authority except by this Court upon challenge made thereto. Indisputably, the order dated 30.11.2009 was not challenged by the aggrieved party before this Court and any order of remand was passed. That being the position in law the impugned order passed by the Authority dated 06.07.2010 (Annexure-1) on review in case no. 470 of 2009 is quashed and set aside.
The writ application is allowed.
(Kishore Kumar Mandal, J) Shyam/-
U