Abuzar Siddiquee vs The State Of Bihar
2021 Latest Caselaw 5403 Patna

         IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                     Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6167 of 2019
     ======================================================

Md. Arshad Hussain, male, aged about 35 years, Son of Md. Ahmed Hussain, Resident of Village-Taran, P.O.-Duba, P.S.-Jokihat, District-Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Araria District-Araria.

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria, District-Araria.

5. The Block Development Officer, Jokihat, District-Araria.

6. The Block Education Officer, Araria, District-Araria.

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Taran, Block and P.S.-Jokihat, District-

Araria.

8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Taran, Block and P.S.-

Jokihat, District-Araria.

9. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Araria, through its Member, District-Araria.

10. Saddam Hussain, Son of Abdul Hamid, Resident of Village-Pechaili, P.O.-

Balua Deuri, P.S.-Palasi, District-Araria.

11. Jiya Naiyar, Son of Naiyar Islam, Resident of Village-Purandaha, P.O.-

Donya, Sonapur, P.S.-Simraha, District-Araria.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5365 of 2019 ====================================================== Md. Fazlur Rahman, male, aged about 42 years, son of Md. Mojibur Rahman, Resident of Village-Taran, P.O.-Duba, P.S.-Jokihat, District-Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Araria, District-Araria. Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria District-Araria.

5. The Block Development Officer, Jokihat, District-Araria.

6. The Block Education Officer, Araria, District-Araria.

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Taran, Block and P.S.-Jokihat, District-

Araria.

8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Taran, Block and P.S.-

Jokihat, District-Araria.

9. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Araria through its Member, District-Araria.

10. Saddam Hussain, son of Abdul Hamid, Resident of Village-Pechaili, P.O.-

Balua Deuri, P.S.-Palasi, District-Araria.

11. Jiya Naiyar, son of Niyar Islam, Resident of Village-Purandaha, P.O.-Donya, Sonapur, P.S.-Simraha, District-Araria.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5562 of 2019 ======================================================

1. Md. Saddam Hussain, aged about 27 years, male, S/o Abdul Hamid, Resident of Village-Pechaili, P.O.-Balua Deuri, P.S.-Palasi, District-Araria.

2. Jiya Naiyar, aged about 28 years, male, S/o Naiyar Islam, Resident of Village-Purandaha, P.O.-Donya, Sonapur, P.S.-Simraha, District-Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

3. The District Education Officer, Araria.

4. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria.

5. The Block Development Officer, Jokihat, Araria.

6. The Block Education Officer, Araria.

7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Taran, Block and P.S.-Jokihat, District-

Araria.

8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Taran, Block and P.S.-

Jokihat, District-Araria.

9. Md. Arshad Hussain, S/o Md. Ahmad Hussain, Resident of Village-Taran, P.O.-Duba, P.S.-Jokihat, District-Araria.

10. Md. Fazlur Rahman, S/o Md. Mojibur Rahman, Resident of Village-Taran, P.O.-Duba, P.S.-Jokihat, District-Araria. Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7147 of 2019 ======================================================

1. Abuzar Siddiquee, aged about 31 years, male, S/o-Md. Anwarul Haque, R/o-

Vill-Taran Tola Kamat, P.O.-Duba, P.S.-Jokihat, District-Araria.

2. Md. Nazrul Hasan, S/o-Md. Jawadul Haque, R/o-Vill-Hondi Bhasa, P.O. and P.S.-Kocha Dhaman, District-Kishanganj.

3. Nazia Ghazal, D/o-Mujtaba Hussain Iltaja, R/o-Vill-Taran, P.O.-Duba, P.S.-

Jokihat, District-Araria.

4. Shama Parveen, D/o-Md. Shahid Alam, R/o-At and P.O.-Chainpur, P.S.-

Mahalgaon, District-Araria.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Goverment of Bihar, Patna.

2. The State Appellate Authority through its Secretary Education Department, Bihar.

3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Education Officer, District-Araria.

5. The District Programme Officer, District-Araria.

6. The Block Development Officer, Jokihat, District-Araria.

7. The Block Education Officer, Jokihat, District-Araria.

8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Taran, Block-Jokihat, District-Araria.

9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Taran, Block-Jokihat, District-Araria.

10. Md. Arshad Hussain, S/o-Md. Ahmad Hussain, R/o-Vill-Taran, P.O.-Duba, P.S.-Jokihat, District-Araria.

11. Md. Fazlur Rahman, S/o-Md. Mojibur Rahman, R/o-Vill-Taran, P.O.-Duba, P.S.-Jokihat, District-Araria.

12. Saddam Hussain, S/o-Md. Abdul Hammid, R/o-Vill-Pechaili, P.O.-Balua Dewri, P.S.-Palasi, District-Araria.

13. Ziya Naiyar, S/o-Naiyar Islam, R/o-Vill-Purandaha, P.O.-Doriya Sonapur, P.S.-Simraha, District-Araria.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

(In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6167 of 2019) Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

For the Petitioner/s :Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Adv. For the State :Mr. Jai Prabhat Kishore, A.C. to S.C. 13 For the Respondent Nos. 10 & 11 :Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, Adv. (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5365 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s :Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, Adv. For the State :Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadaw, G.P. 23 Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, A.C. to G.P. 23 For the Respondent Nos. 10 & 11 :Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, Adv. (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 5562 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, Adv.

Mr. Ajit Kumar, Adv.

For the State :Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, G.P. 20 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7147 of 2019) For the Petitioner/s :Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, Adv.

Mr. Priya Ranjan Singh, Adv.

Mr. Pranab Jha, Adv.

For the State :Mr. Subhash Chandra Mishra, S.C. 16 Mr. Madhukar Mishra, A.C. to S.C. 16 For the Respondent Nos. 12 & 13 :Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 23-11-2021

Heard Mr. S.B.K. Manglam, the learned

Advocate for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 6167 of 2019

(Md. Arshad Hussain Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and in

C.W.J.C. No. 5365 of 2019 (Md. Fazlur Rahman Vs. The

State of Bihar & Ors.); Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, the

learned Advocate in C.W.J.C. No. 5562 of 2019 (Md.

Saddam Hussain & Anr. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.); and

Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, the learned Advocate in C.W.J.C.

No. 7147 of 2019 (Abuzar Siddiquee & Ors. Vs. The State

of Bihar & Ors.). Mr. Shambhu Sharan Kumar, the learned Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

Advocate has appeared for the private respondent Nos. 10 &

11 and 12 & 13 in C.W.J.C. No. 6167 of 2019 and C.W.J.C.

No. 5365 of 2019 as also in C.W.J.C. No. 7147 of 2019

respectively. The State is represented by Mr. Jai Prabhat

Kishore, learned A.C. to S.C. 13, Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav,

learned G.P. 23, Mr. Madanjeet Kumar, learned G.P. 20 and

Mr. S.C. Mishra, learned S.C. 16 in all the writ petitions

respectively.

2. The order passed by the State Appellate

Authority dated 15.02.2019 is in question in all the writ

petitions.

3. On behalf of the writ-petitioners in C.W.J.C.

No. 6167 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 5365 of 2019, Mr.

S.B.K. Manglam, the learned Advocate has submitted that

the District Teachers Appellate Authority in its order dated

27.02.2018 as also the State Appellate Authority in its order

dated 15.02.2019 have erred in facts and law.

4. The afore-noted petitioners were selected as

Panchayat Elementary School Teachers in the discipline of

Urdu in a camp interview which was held on 18.11.2016. Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

Their appointments were challenged by the private

respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and private respondent Nos. 12

and 13 in respective writ petitions, referred to above, before

the concerned authority specifically alleging that their names

were arbitrarily not called out during the process of selection.

When no action was taken on such complaints, they

preferred an application before the District Teachers

Appellate Authority, which, by its order impugned in the

present two writ petitions (C.W.J.C. No. 6167 of 2019 and

C.W.J.C. No. 5365 of 2019) held that the interview/selection

process was not conducted fairly.

5. The challenge to the aforesaid order by the

petitioners before the State Appellate Authority could not

succeed.

6. It has been urged on behalf of the petitioners

(C.W.J.C. No. 6167 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 5365 of

2019) by Mr. Manglam that in camp interview, the procedure

adopted was that the name of the candidates was called out

thrice. When such candidate did not show-up, the

authorities were required to proceed ahead and call out Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

another name. He submits that the whole purpose of

conducting camp interview was to shorten the process of

selection/appointment and also to look for desirous

candidates having eligibility to be appointed as teachers in

specific subjects. It matters not, Mr. Manglam adds, that

any person has higher marks. What is necessary for being

selected is the eligibility of the candidate and his appearance

before the authorities at the time of call of his name.

7. Taking the argument further, Mr. Manglam

states that there was nothing on record before the District

Teachers Appellate Authority or the State Appellate Authority

to have come to a definite finding that the private

respondent Nos. 10 and 11 and the private respondent Nos.

12 and 13 respectively were present at the time when the

interview was being conducted. He further submits that the

District Teachers Appellate Authority drew a presumption

against the petitioners only on the ground that there were

eight hundred twenty five (825) applicants registered for the

purposes of selection, but only ten had shown-up on that

day, which, in the opinion of the District Teachers Appellate Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

Authority, made the entire selection process highly

suspicious. Apart from this, what weighed with the District

Teachers Appellate Authority was not borne out by records.

The authority in question took note of the simultaneous

complaints of the respondents against the authorities

conducting the process. The claim of the respective

respondents that the matter was reported to all the

functionaries, is not correct and some of the functionaries

were even present in the camp during the process of

selection.

8. In that fact scenario, it is difficult to believe,

Mr. Manglam asserts, that the pandemonium would have

been allowed to be continued any further.

9. It has also been submitted that

notwithstanding the fact that the respective respondents in

each of the writ petitions may have higher marks but in the

absence of any proof of the fact that they were present

during the process, the District Teachers Appellate Authority

ought not to have ordered for annulling the appointment of

the petitioners and asking the authorities in question to Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

induct the respective respondents in their places.

10. Lastly, Mr. Manglam has also raised his

grievance with respect to only part implementation of the

order passed by the State Appellate Authority in as much as,

the direction of the State Appellate Authority for conducting

a fresh process for appointing/selecting teachers has not

been complied with and the respondents have been allowed

to continue on their respective posts as if their appointments

were declared to be final and without any blemish with

respect to the selection process.

11. As opposed to the aforesaid contentions, Mr.

Shambhu Sharan Kumar, the learned Advocate for the

private respondent Nos. 10 and 11 (C.W.J.C. No. 6167 of

2019), the private respondent Nos. 12 and 13 (in C.W.J.C.

No. 7147 of 2019) and for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No.

5365 of 2019 respectively has submitted that shortly after

their names were not called out in the process, they made a

complaint before the B.D.O. regarding the irregularity

committed during during the selection process. Such

complaint was immediately taken note of and the B.D.O. Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

informed the District Education Officer, who, in turn,

apprised the Sub-Divisional Officer of the happenings at the

camp site. There were other complaints also which were

filed later and were taken into account by the Sub-Divisional

Officer, who, on finding the process adopted to be absolutely

amiss and in flagrant violation of the rules, stayed the final

selection.

12. Notwithstanding the aforesaid order of stay,

the petitioners were provided employment letters.

13. The other argument advanced on behalf of

the private respondents is that the District Teachers

Appellate Authority as also the State Appellate Authority

found that the claim of the respondents were by-passed and

wrongly, with mala fide motives, the petitioners were

selected to be appointed as teachers. The State Appellate

Authority concurred with the findings of the District Teachers

Appellate Authority, but without there being any basis,

strayed beyond the lis and directed for conducting fresh

round of selection by way of abundant precaution.

14. Mr. Kumar submits that the State Appellate Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

Authority traversed beyond the mandate given to it. There

was no dispute with respect to the process which was to be

followed in such camp interviews. Out of ten persons who

were shown to have been present in such interview, six were

appointed. The appointment process with respect to only

two of the candidates, who are the petitioners in C.W.J.C.

No. 6167 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 5365 of 2019 was

under cloud. That complaint having been found to be

genuine, the District Teachers Appellate Authority had

passed an order directing the annulment of the appointment

of the petitioners and inducting the respondents in their

places. When there was no difference in the findings by the

State Appellate Authority, there was no reason for him to

have directed for a fresh round of selection process. He

further submits that no purpose can be said to be served if

such part of the order of the State Appellate Authority would

be implemented.

15. In support of the aforesaid contention, Mr.

Kumar has drawn the attention of this Court to a decision

reported in (2017) 2 PLJR 125, in which, this Court has held Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

that any complaint before the District Teachers Appellate

Authority or the State Appellate Authority is only an

invocation of their powers to look into the correctness of the

appointment process or any other grievance. The jurisdiction

of the Tribunals is limited to the complaints. The mandate of

the Tribunals could not have been expanded by taking a

general view of the matter, namely, that for any decision to

be above board and beyond any circumspection, it would be

appropriate if a fresh round of interview is conducted.

16. Mr. Kumar has further argued that such

forays into an uncharted domain so far as the Tribunal is

concerned, would not only be self-destructive but would also

entail severe expenses on the State exchequer. He has also

contended that notwithstanding any other reason in the fact

situation brought on record in these writ petitions, there was

no justification for suggesting such modification in the order

passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority. If the

State Appellate Authority had any doubt about the process

having been conducted in a regular manner, the findings of

the District Teachers Appellate Authority could have been Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

doubted or reversed. Concurring with the findings of the

District Teachers Appellate Authority and then directing for a

fresh round of exercise is not justified in the eyes of law

and, therefore, is unsustainable.

17. Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, the learned

Advocate, who has appeared for the petitioners/Abuzar

Siddiquee and three others in C.W.J.C. No. 7147 of 2019,

has submitted that he is only aggrieved by the afore-noted

part of the order of the State Appellate Authority, whereby a

direction has been issued for fresh round of interview for

selection. The petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 7147 of 2019

were appointed in the first round without there being any

complaint against them and factually speaking, they are

having higher marks than any one of the aspirants in the

present set of litigation. He has thus limited his argument to

questioning the justification of the State Appellate Authority

having forayed into a field which was not within its mandate.

18. After having heard the counsel for the

parties, this Court finds that the private respondent Nos. 10

and 11 (in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6167 of 2019 and 5365 of 2019) Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

and the private respondent Nos. 12 and 13 (in C.W.J.C. No.

7147 of 2019) have higher percentage of marks than the

petitioners in aforesaid two writ petitions, viz., C.W.J.C. No.

6167 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 5365 of 2019 and that they

had raised complaint immediately after their names had been

by-passed.

19. This Court also takes notice of the fact that

both the authorities, i.e., the District Teachers Appellate

Authority and the State Appellate Authority have considered

the complaint seriously and came to the conclusion that the

process had been muddled by not calling the names of the

candidates who had appeared. The authorities dealing with

the matter appreciated the fact that after the process was

concluded, the Register should have been closed. That not

having been done on the day when the interviews were held,

the complaint of the Panchayat Secretary that he was made

to sign the appointment letters at the behest of the husband

of the Mukhiya and other functionaries, appears to be

correct.

20. The argument advanced by Mr. S.B.K.

Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

Manglam that the S.D.O. is no authority to interfere or to

oversee the process of selection is not of any worth for the

reason that the S.D.O. is an authority in the hierarchy of

officers though not directly concerned with the affairs of the

selection/appointment of the teachers in the camp interview,

nonetheless, when irregularity on such a scale was being

committed and no action was being taken, it was only

natural for the respondents to have approach the Sub-

Divisional Officer for the needful.

21. I find that the order passed by the District

Teachers Appellate Authority and the State Appellate

Authority with respect to the process of appointment of the

petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 6167 of 2019 and 5365 of

2019 are without any folly. However, I would hasten to add

that this Court does not approve of the direction issued by

the State Appellate Authority for conducting fresh round of

interviews by way of abundant precaution as it was not

required in the first instance and it appears to be anomalous

in a situation when the facts found by the District Teachers

Appellate Authority has been concurred with by the State Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

Appellate Authority.

22. The powers of the State Appellate Authority

was invoked to see whether the orders passed by the District

Teachers Appellate Authority was correct. If there was any

doubt with respect to the correctness of the order of the

District Teachers Appellate Authority, the State Appellate

Authority had all the jurisdiction to change or differ with such

order. Accepting such a finding and then asking the

concerned authorities to conduct fresh round of selection

process, in the opinion of this Court, is absolutely

unwarranted and unjustified.

23. That part of the order of the State Appellate

Authority is, therefore, not found to be sustainable and, is,

accordingly, set-aside.

24. The upshot of this discussion is that the

C.W.J.C. No. 6167 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 5365 of 2019

are dismissed.

25. The C.W.J.C. No. 5562 of 2019 and

C.W.J.C. No. 7147 of 2019 are allowed to the extent that

the directions passed by the State Appellate Authority for Patna High Court CWJC No.6167 of 2019 dt.23-11-2021

conducting a fresh round of selection process is set-aside.

26. Both the writ petitions, viz., C.W.J.C. No.

5562 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 7147 of 2019 are thus

allowed.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J)

Praveen-II/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          26.11.2021
Transmission Date       N/A