Patna High Court - Orders
Md.Reyaz Alam vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 25 September, 2012
Author: Shiva Kirti Singh
Bench: Shiva Kirti Singh, Vikash Jain
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1099 of 2012
======================================================
1. Md.Reyaz Alam Son Of Md. Sharfuddin Resident Of Village Teliahat,
Post Office - Sarbela, Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa..
Appellant
Versus
1.The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Human
Resources Development, Bihar, Patna
2. The District Teacher Selection Appellate Tribunal, Saharsa through its
Secretary
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa
4. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Mubarakpur, Post Office - Mubarakpur,
Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mubarakpur, Post Office -
Mubarakpur, Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
6. The Head Master, Primary School, Gorgama, Post Office - Ghordour,
Police Station - Saharsa, District - Saharsa
7. Satish Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad Bhagat, Resident of Bharatiya
Nagar, Ward No. 26, Post Office - Saharsa, District - Saharsa
8. Md. Qamar Eqbal, son Of Abu Bakar, Resident of Village - Mubarakpur,
Post Office - Mubarakpur, Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
9. Shahla Tabassum wife of Md. Intezar Alam @ Munna, Resident of
Village - Tolwa, Post Office - Ghordour, Police Station - Salkhua,
District - Saharsa
10. Abu Nasar son of Md. Yaqub, Resident Of Village - Mubarakpur, Post
Office - Mubarakpur, Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
with
Letters Patent Appeal No.1132 of 2012
======================================================
1. Pankaj Kumar Choudhary son of Shri Ramswaroop Choudhary,
Resident of Village- Phensaha, Post Office - Ghordour, Police Station -
Salkhua, District - Saharsa
.... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Secretary, Department of Human
Resources Development , Bihar , Patna
2. The District Teacher Selection Appellate Tribunal, Saharsa through its
Secretary
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Saharsa
4. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Mubarakpur, Post Office - Mubarakpur,
Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
5. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Mubarakpur, Post Office -
Mubarakpur, Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
6. The Head Master, Primary School, Mubarakpur, Post Office -
Mubarakpur, Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
7. Satish Kumar son of Rajendra Prasad Bhagat, Resident of Bharatiya
Patna High Court LPA No.1099 of 2012 (3) dt.25-09-2012 2
Nagar, Ward No. 26, Post Office - Saharsa, District - Saharsa
8. Md. Qamar Eqbal son of Abu Bakar, Resident of Village - Mubarakpur,
Post Office - Mubarakpur, Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
9. Shahla Tabassum wife of Md. Intezar Alam @ Munna, Resident of
Village - Tolwa, Post Office - Ghordour, Police Station - Salkhua,
District - Saharsa
10. Abu Nasar son of Md. Yaqub, Resident of Village - Mubarakpur, Post
Office - Mubarakpur, Police Station - Salkhua, District - Saharsa
11. The Member, Teacher Selection Appellate Tribunal, Saharsa
.... .... Respondents
======================================================
Appearance :
(In LPA No.1099 of 2012)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Ranjeet Sahay,
Mr. Syed Masleh-Uddin Ashraf, Advocates
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kuar.Verma ,SC-27
(In LPA No.1132 of 2012)
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Syed Masleh-Uddin Ashraf
For the Respondent/s : Mr. J.S. Arora , SC-6
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIKASH JAIN
ORAL ORDER
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVA KIRTI SINGH)
3. 25-09-2012. Heard the parties.
2. These Letters Patent Appeals are directed against the judgment and order dated 15.2.2012, whereby a learned Single Judge of this court has dismissed a batch of writ petitions including one bearing C.W.J.C. No.11574 of 2009 preferred by the appellants of both the appeals.
3. The writ court has made thorough evaluation of detailed order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saharsa dated 27.7.2009 which was under challenge in all the analogous writ petitions. The writ court has approved Patna High Court LPA No.1099 of 2012 (3) dt.25-09-2012 3 the findings and orders of the Appellate Authority whereby the Authority held the appointment of all concerned Panchayat Teachers to be invalid except that of one trained teacher Krishna Kumar Bharti. The Appellate Authority, while directing for initiation for taking steps for fresh recruitment, also felt compelled to write a letter to the District Magistrate, Saharsa so that criminal and or administrative action may be taken against the concerned public servant for indulging in gross irregularity, illegality and arbitrariness in making the concerned appointments.
4. Learned counsel for the appellants has made two-fold submissions. Firstly, he raises the issue of lack of jurisdiction in the Appellate Authority in proceeding to hold the entire appointment or recruitment process to be illegal. According to the learned counsel, such power can not be exercised by an Appellate Authority, who has been vested with limited power of deciding appeal in the matters related to appointment of a Panchayat Teacher under Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules 2006 (hereinafter referred to as Rules of 2006) as amended by Amendment Rules of 2008. Secondly, he has reiterated a grievance raised before the writ court that no proper Patna High Court LPA No.1099 of 2012 (3) dt.25-09-2012 4 opportunity of hearing was afforded to the affected teachers including the appellants.
5. So far as opportunity of hearing is concerned, the writ court has extracted the submissions made in paragraph no.11 of the writ application and on that basis it found no merit in the contention on this issue. Admittedly, notice was given to these appellants and they had the opportunity of presenting their cases before the Appellate Authority which is evident from its order itself.
6. So far as lack of jurisdiction is concerned, the relevant provisions in amended Rule 18 of Rules of 2006 provide for an appeal before an Appellate Authority to be constituted by the Human Resources Development Department and further provide that such Appellate Authority will have the power to hear appeal at the district level in respect of matters related to appointment made under the Rules. In contra-distinction under Rule 18 of the Rules of 2006, prior to amendment in 2008, a provision was made that any kind of complaint made in respect of appointment/transfer and matters related to service conditions of Panchayat Teachers under the Rules will be decided by the Block Development Officer. In respect of Block Teachers, such power was vested in the Deputy Development Commissioner. Patna High Court LPA No.1099 of 2012 (3) dt.25-09-2012 5
7. In Rule 18, by the Amendment Rules of 2008, the word 'appeal' has been introduced and the scope of 'appeal' covers matters relating to appointment made under the Rules. Matters relating to transfer and other service conditions have been left out.
8. If the submission made on behalf of the appellants is accepted, the provision of appeal after amendment will have to be read down and then only it can be held that the appeal can be entertained only against a particular appointment or a particular appointed teacher.
9. In our considered view, there is no need of reading down the Rules because neither the Rules are ambiguous nor they violate any provision of law. An Appellate Tribunal constituted by exercise of statutory power has to adhere to rules of natural justice and act fairly. Its decision must be supported by reasons. Since the rules permit an appeal in relation to appointment or recruitment under the Rules, in our considered view, the Appellate Authority will be within its jurisdiction in entertaining an appeal in matters like the one under consideration wherein the aggrieved candidate has made a grievance against the entire selection process and has alleged that although he had higher marks, he was illegally ignored and persons with lower marks Patna High Court LPA No.1099 of 2012 (3) dt.25-09-2012 6 were selected/appointed by a process which was arbitrary, irregular and illegal.
10. Learned counsel for the State has shown us from the order of the Appellate Authority that the grievances raised by the concerned appellants were not against any particular selected candidate but against the process by which selection was made. In the said factual circumstances, rule of natural justice required giving notice to all the appointed Panchayat Teachers who were likely to be affected in case of success of appeal. That procedure was rightly adopted by the Appellate Authority.
11. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals and both the appeals are accordingly dismissed.
(Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)
ahk/- (Vikash Jain, J.