Patna High Court - Orders
Vinita Sinha vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 20 June, 2014
Author: Jayanandan Singh
Bench: Jayanandan Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.108 of 2013
======================================================
1. Vinita Sinha W/O - Shri Rajan Kumar Srivastava Resident Of Village -
Hethua, P.S - Rajpur, District - Buxar
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Secretary, Primary And Adult Education Department, Govt. Of
Bihar, Patna
3. The District Magistrate, Buxar
4. The District Teachers Employment Authority, Buxar
5. The District Superintendent Of Education, Buxar
6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Rajpur, District - Buxar
7. The Block Development Officer, Rajpur, District - Buxar
8. Ruby Kumari D/O - Shri Sadanand Singh Resident Of Village + P.O. -
Sisgarh, Block - Rajpur, P.S. - Rajpur, District - Buxar
9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Hethua, P.S. - Rajpur, District -
Buxar
10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Hethua, P.S. - Rajpur,
District - Buxar
11. Rinki Kumari, daughter of Shri Binayak Prasad Singh, resident of
village Hethua, P.S. Rajpur, District- Buxar.
.... .... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shri Prakash Srivastava
For the State : Mr. Kumar Alok, S.C.8
Mr. Raj Kumar Singh, A.C. to S.C.8
For Respondents 8 & 11 : Mr. Manoj Kumar
Mr. Abhishek Anand
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JAYANANDAN SINGH
ORAL ORDER
5 20-06-2014This is second round of litigation between the parties. It appears that petitioner had earlier filed CWJC No.581 of 2010 in which the newly added respondent no.11 was respondent no.7. Petitioner had challenged the order of the Appellate Authority by which it had directed for reinstatement of respondent no.11 on the post of Panchayat Teacher. Matter was Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2013 (5) dt.20-06-2014 2/8 contested by respondent no.11 and by order dated 27.4.2012, as contained in Annexure- 5/A, application was disposed of. In this order, the Court noticed the admission of respondent no.11 that she had been given three tenure of 11 months as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and the last extension was given to her on 10.1.2005 and the period of 11 months had come to an end on 10.12.2005, whereafter she was not given any extension on the post of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. The Court also found that under the rules the Collector of the District had no authority to direct for reinstatement of any Panchayat Shiksha Mitra. This Court also found that the order of the Appellate Authority directing for reinstatement of respondent no.11 also could not be upheld and the same was quashed. Court noticed that from the facts it emerged that one Rubi Kumari, who had better percentage of marks, had not been considered by the Sukh Suvidha Committee in its meeting dated 11.2.2006 by which petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Shikhsa Mitra. However, since she had not been made party in the said writ application, Court did not give any finding and remitted the matter back to the Appellate Authority to re-examine the complaint filed by respondent no.11 and dispose of the same after giving due opportunity to the parties. The Court directed that till this exercise was completed, petitioner would Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2013 (5) dt.20-06-2014 3/8 continue.
Matter was accordingly heard by the Appellate Authority and the impugned order dated 29.2.2012, as contained in Annexure-7, was passed. In this order, stand of Rubi Kumari and Rinki Kumari, present respondent no.11, was considered and it was found that in the panel Rubi Kumari was higher than the present petitioner and proceeding dated 11.2.2006 did not show that her case was considered before decision was taken to appoint petitioner as Panchayat Teacher. For this reason, the Appellate Authority found the appointment of petitioner as bad.
Submission of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the term of respondent no.11 Rinki Kumari had come to an end and therefore post had fallen vacant. Accordingly, petitioner was appointed as Shiksha Mitra by Sukh Suvidha Committee through its resolution dated 11.2.2006, as contained in Annexure- 9 with the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner on 17.6.2014. He also submits that Rubi Kumari is now working as incharge Headmistress of another School and therefore she cannot stake her claim in the matter as before staking her claim, she has to agree to resign from the post of Headmistress and from that School.
Learned counsel for respondent no.11 Rinki Kumari Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2013 (5) dt.20-06-2014 4/8 has pointed out that the proceeding of the Sukh Suvidha Committee was itself bad and in fact a manipulated document has been placed before this Court by the petitioner. He refers to photo copy of the proceeding, annexed as Annexure-E with his counter affidavit and submits that in the meeting Headmaster and Panchayat Secretary had not participated, who were essential members of Sukh Suvidha Committee in terms of Rule 9(viii)( ) of the Bihar Panchayat Teachers Appointment Rules, 2006. He further submits that no notice was issued to respondent no.11 before termination of her engagement as was required in terms of Rule 8( ) of the Rules. He submits that the members, whose signatures appeared in the proceeding have sworn affidavit, annexed as Annexure-C series with his counter affidavit, that they were not present in the meeting. He also submits that the appointment letter of the petitioner has been issued in reference to Memo No. SSA/92 dated 11.2.2006 of the District Superintendent of Education, Buxar, which, as per information received by the respondent no.11 under Right to Information Act, vide Annexure- A with the counter affidavit, was for reinstatement of the working Panchayat Shiksha Mitra and not for any other purpose. He further submits that the District Magistrate was divested with the powers only after 2008 wherein orders are of 18.12.2007, vide Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2013 (5) dt.20-06-2014 5/8 Annexure-J. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having considered their submissions, this Court first of all will like to make it clear that on the date of resolution of the Sukh Suvidha Committee i.e. 11.2.2006 the Rules relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent no.11 had not come into force. These Rules were notified only on 1.7.2006 and provided that all validly appointed and working Panchayat Shiksha Mitras were to become Panchayat Teacher with effect from 1.8.2006.
At this stage, learned counsel for respondent no.11 submits that the said provisions were in existence in the guidelines since 2002 itself. He also placed reliance upon a letter of the Department dated 8.8.2006, as contained in Annexure-H with the counter affidavit. In this letter, it was clarified that all Panchayat Shiksha Mitras, who were validly appointed and whose period could not be extended due to intervening Panchayat Elections, but had continued, shall be treated as regularized and working and shall become Panchayat Teachers in terms of the said Rules. This necessarily required that as on the date of this letter and as on the date the Rules having been notified, i.e. 1.7.2006, Panchayat Shiksha Mitras had in fact to be found validly appointed and working.
Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2013 (5) dt.20-06-20146/8
In the earlier writ application learned counsel for the respondents had admitted that last extension of respondent no.11 was 10.1.2005, which came to an end on 10.12.2005 whereafter her engagement was not extended. This Court also asked learned counsel for respondent no.11 to give dates of engagement of respondent no.11 and he informed that she was initially engaged on 12.2.2003, her first extension was 13.2.2004 and second extension was on 15.2.2005, which ended on 15.1.2006. There may be slight difference of one month in this statement of learned counsel for respondent no.11 and the statement of learned counsel, who had appeared for her before this Court earlier. But this is not denied that after 15.1.2006 her engagement was not extended.
Learned counsel then places reliance on payment chart, as contained in Annexure-G, attendance chart of training camp for training of Panchayat Shiksha Mitras, annexed as Annexure-I, to submit that as late as till May, 2006 she was undergoing training and therefore she was being treated as working Panchayat Shiksha Mitra.
These documents do contain name of respondent no.11, but fact remains that under the guidelines no person was entitled to be engaged as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra for the fourth Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2013 (5) dt.20-06-2014 7/8 time. Guidelines clearly contain restrictions on engagement of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra beyond three times. Admittedly, third term of respondent no.11 as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra ended on 15.1.2006. Therefore, no authority of the Government of any level had power to continue respondent no.11 as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra thereafter. If any authority at local level had allowed respondent no.11 to continue in ignorance of clear embargo contained in the guidelines and thereafter drew her remuneration, that was illegal.
In the circumstances, this Court finds that the Sukh Suvidha Committee in its meeting dated 11.2.2006 rightly held that the contractual engagement of respondent no.11 had ended. Therefore, this Court does not find any error in the proceeding by which it decided to appoint the petitioner as Shiksha Mitra. The affidavits of the members, which have been annexed with the counter affidavit of respondent no.11, denying that they had not participated in the meeting of the Sukh Suvidha Committee, does not inspire confidence as this Court does not find that there is any remarkable difference in their signatures on the photo copy of the proceeding and the affidavits. In any case, this Court had earlier given liberty to the Appellate Authority to examine the validity of the proceeding independently, but that could not be in the light of Patna High Court CWJC No.108 of 2013 (5) dt.20-06-2014 8/8 any claim of respondent no.11. Impugned order does not show that the Appellate Authority applied its independent mind to the genuineness and validity of the proceeding separately. Only finding on which the Appellate Authority has found the appointment of petitioner bad is that the Sukh Suvidha Committee did not consider the case of Rubi Kumari. Rubi Kumari has not given any undertaking in this Court that she is ready to resign from the present school and stake her claim to the post which the petitioner is holding. In the circumstances, claim of petitioner need not be considered in the backdrop of any right of said Rubi Kumari. This Court has found that all rights of respondent no.11 had extinguished with the end of her third term of engagement on 15.1.2006 and therefore engagement of the petitioner cannot be found fault with on account of any grievance of respondent no.11.
Writ application is accordingly allowed. Order of the Appellate Authority dated 29.10.2012, as contained in Annexure-7, is quashed.
(Jayanandan Singh, J) Pradeep/-
U T