Patna High Court
Suprita Kumari vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 18 December, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.717 of 2018
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3241 of 2016
======================================================
Suprita Kumari D/o Sri Pal Narayan Singh Resident of Village- Majhaulia , P.O- Majhaulia
Block Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Director , Department of Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Sitamarhi.
4. The District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority, Sitamarhi.
5. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi.
6. The District Programme Officer Establishment Sitamarhi.
7. The Block Development Officer, Bathnaha, Sitamarhi.
8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bathnaha, Sitamarhi.
9. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Majhaulia, Block Bathnaha, District Sitamarhi.
10. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Majhaulia Block Bathnaha, District
Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan, AC to AAG-15
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RUDRA PRAKASH MISHRA
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE VIPUL M. PANCHOLI)
Date : 18-12-2023
The present appeal is filed under Clause 10 of the
Letters Patent Appeal of the Patna High Court Rules against order
dated 19.03.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in Civil Writ
Jurisdiction Case No. 3241 of 2016, whereby the learned Single
Judge has dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/original
writ petitioner.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.717 of 2018 dt. 18-12-2023
2/9
2. The facts leading to filing of the present appeal are as
under:-
2.1. It is a case of the appellant that the Director,
Primary Education published an advertisement for the appointment
of Panchayat Teacher for 2nd phase of appointment of Panchayat
Teacher Employment 2008. Out of the total vacancies in the state
of Bihar, 6 were allotted to the different Panchayats as per the
availability of the vacancies. The Gram Panchayat Raj Majhaulia,
Block-Bathnaha in the District of Sitamarhi was allotted 3 seats
namely, U.R.-01, U.R.(F)-01, E.B.C.(F)-01 respectively and the
appellant applied under the category U.R. (F) (General Category).
It is further stated that pursuance of the advertisement issued in the
year 2008, the appellant along with other applicants applied for the
post of Panchayat Shikshak, Gram Panchayat Raj Majhaulia in the
district of Sitamarhi on 17.11.2008.
2.2. It is further stated that after completion of the
scrutiny of the application forms of all the applicants, the final
merit list dated 10.01.2009 was prepared and the date for
counseling was fixed. However, thereafter, the counseling of the
appellant was not done and, therefore, the appellant preferred the
appeal before the District Teacher Employment Appellate
Authority. The said authority called for a report from Panchayat
Patna High Court L.P.A No.717 of 2018 dt. 18-12-2023
3/9
Secretary of the concerned Gram Panchayat who submitted the
report and tentative merit list as well as vacancy roster arising out
of the 2nd phase of appointment of Panchayat Teacher during the
year 2008.
2.3. It is also stated that the appellate authority, after
hearing the parties and going through the record produced by the
Panchayat Secretary dismissed the appeal preferred by the
appellant vide order dated 09.01.2016 on the ground that since the
entire process of the appointment of Panchayat Teacher 2 nd phase
of the selection year 2008 has been concluded vide letter dated
04.12.2010
issued by the Education Department, Government of
Bihar, the said appellant authority is not in a position to pass an
order for the appointment of Panchayat Teacher.
2.4. The appellant, therefore, preferred the caption Civil
Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3241 of 2016.
2.5. The learned Single Judge vide impugned order
dated 19.03.2018 dismissed the said writ petition and, therefore,
the appellant has filed the present appeal.
3. Heard learned advocate Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar for the
appellant and Mr. Priyadarshi Matri Sharan for the State.
4. Learned advocate for the appellant has mainly
contended that the selection process for the appointment of
Patna High Court L.P.A No.717 of 2018 dt. 18-12-2023
Panchayat Teacher for 2nd phase of appointment of Teacher
Employment was commenced under 2008 Rules and the name of
the appellant was reflected in the provisional merit list despite
which the appellant was not called for the counseling. The
appellant, therefore, immediately filed the appeal before the
concerned appellate authority in the year 2010 itself. However, the
decision was taken by the said authority only in the year 2016.
Thus, there was no delay on the part of the appellant, despite
which the appellate authority has not entertained the claim of the
appellant. The learned Single Judge also failed to consider the said
aspect by relying upon the 2012 Rules which was introduced only
in the year 2012. Learned counsel for the appellant would
thereafter submit that the appellant applied for the post in question
as per the Rules of 2008 and though the appellant has successfully
cleared the examination, she was not called for the counseling in
the year 2009 itself and, therefore, Rules of 2008 would be
applicable to the case of the appellant. Learned counsel, therefore,
urged that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge
as well as the appellate authority be quashed and set aside and
thereby, direction be issued to the respondents to give appointment
to the appellant/writ petitioner.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.717 of 2018 dt. 18-12-2023
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the
contesting respondents has opposed the present appeal. It is
submitted that the name of the appellant reflects only in the
provisional merit list and the same was not the final merit list. It is
further submitted that merely because the name of the appellant
figured in the provisional merit list, no right is created in the
favour of the appellant. It is further submitted that even otherwise
also, now the said selection process was over and thereafter new
Rules of 2012 are introduced and, therefore, it is not open for the
appellant to contend that she is required to be appointed as per the
old rules. Learned counsel further submits that the learned Single
Judge has not committed any error while dismissing the writ
petition filed by the appellant and, therefore, this Court may not
interfere with the impugned order.
6. We have considered the submissions canvassed by the
learned advocates appearing for the parties. We have also perused
the material placed on record. It transpires from the record that in
the year 2008, the concerned respondent had published an
advertisement for the appointment of Panchayat Teachers for 2 nd
phase under the scheme Panchayat Teacher Employment 2008.
The appellant herein, applied for the same under the U.R.
Category. The counseling for the appointment was done in
Patna High Court L.P.A No.717 of 2018 dt. 18-12-2023
February 2009. However, subsequent procedure could not take
place as a result of killing of the mukhiya of the concerned
Panchayat. As no decision was taken by the respondent, the
appellant preferred appeal before the concerned appellate authority
in the year 2010. It is pertinent to note that in the meantime, new
Rules of 2012 have been introduced. Now, in the year 2016, the
concerned appellate authority did not entertain the claim of the
writ petitioner/appellant herein. It is also reflected from the record
that the concerned respondent had produced the provisional merit
list in which the name of the appellant figured. However, no final
merit list was prepared and, therefore, we are of the view that the
appellant has no vested right of appointment on the basis of the
provisional merit list prepared by the concerned respondent
authority.
7. At this stage, we would like to refer the decision
rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of
M.P. and Others Vs. Raghuveer Singh Yadav and Others,
reported in (1994) 6 SCC 151, wherein the Hon'ble Supreme
Court has observed in Para-5 as under:-
"5. It is not in dispute that Statutory Rules have
been made introducing Degree in Science or Engineering or
Diploma in Technology as qualifications for recruitment to the
posts of Inspector of Weights and Measures. It is settled law
that the State has got power to prescribe qualifications for
Patna High Court L.P.A No.717 of 2018 dt. 18-12-2023
recruitment. Here is a case that pursuant to amended Rules,
the Government has withdrawn the earlier notification and
wants to proceed with the recruitment afresh. It is not a case
of any accrued right. The candidates who had appeared for
the examination and passed the written examination had only
legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims
according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have
only prospective operation. The Government is entitled to
conduct selection in accordance with the changed rules and
make final recruitment. Obviously no candidate acquired any
vested right against the State. Therefore, the State is entitled
to withdraw the notification by which it had previously
notified recruitment and to issue fresh notification in that
regard on the basis of the amended Rules."
7.1. From the aforesaid observation made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the candidates who had
appeared for the examination and passed the written examination
had only legitimate expectation to be considered of their claims
according to the rules then in vogue. The amended Rules have
only prospective operation. The Government is entitled to conduct
selection in accordance with the changed rules and make final
recruitment. Further, no candidate acquired any vested right
against the State.
8. In the case of State of U.P. and Others Vs. Rajkumar
Sharma and Others, reported in (2006) 3 SCC 330, the Hon'ble
Supreme Court has observed in Para-14 as under:-
"14. Selectees cannot claim the appointment as a
matter of right. Mere inclusion of candidate's name in the list
Patna High Court L.P.A No.717 of 2018 dt. 18-12-2023
does not confer any right to be selected, even if some of the
vacancies remained unfilled and the candidates concerned
cannot claim that they have been given a hostile
discrimination. (See Shankarsan Dash v. Union of
India [(1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S) 800 : (1991) 17
ATC 95 : AIR 1991 SC 1612] ; Asha Kaul v. State of
J&K [(1993) 2 SCC 573 : 1993 SCC (L&S) 637 : (1993) 24
ATC 576] ; Union of India v. S.S. Uppal [(1996) 2 SCC 168 :
1996 SCC (L&S) 438 : (1996) 32 ATC 668 : AIR 1996 SC
2340] ; Hanuman Prasad v. Union of India [(1996) 10 SCC
742 : 1997 SCC (L&S) 364] ; Bihar Public Service
Commission v. State of Bihar [(1997) 3 SCC 198 : 1997 SCC
(L&S) 775 : AIR 1997 SC 2280] ; Syndicate Bank v. Shankar
Paul [(1997) 6 SCC 584 : AIR 1997 SC 3091] ; Vice-
Chancellor, University of Allahabad v. Dr. Anand Prakash
Mishra [(1997) 10 SCC 264 : 1997 SCC (L&S)
1265] ; Punjab SEB v. Seema [1999 SCC (L&S) 629] ; All
India SC & ST Employees' Assn. v. A. Arthur Jeen [(2001) 6
SCC 380 : AIR 2001 SC 1851] ; Vinodan T. v. University of
Calicut [(2002) 4 SCC 726 : 2002 SCC (L&S) 606] ; S.
Renuka v. State of A.P. [(2002) 5 SCC 195 : 2002 SCC (L&S)
689 : AIR 2002 SC 1523] and Batiarani Gramiya
Bank v. Pallab Kumar [(2004) 9 SCC 100 : 2004 SCC (L&S)
715 : AIR 2003 SC 4248] .)"
8.1. From the aforesaid observation made by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, it can be said that the selectees cannot
claim the appointment as a matter of right. Mere inclusion of
candidate's name in the list does not confer any right to be
selected, even if the some of the vacancies remain unfilled and the
candidates concerned cannot claim that they have been given a
hostile discrimination.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.717 of 2018 dt. 18-12-2023
9. Keeping in view the aforesaid decisions rendered by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court, if the facts of the present case as
discussed hereinabove are examined, we are of the view that the
appellant herein whose name figured in the provisional merit list
cannot claim as a matter of right that she is required to be selected
and appointed on the post in question as per the Rules of 2008.
10. We have also gone through the reasoning recorded
by the learned Single Judge while dismissing the petition filed by
the writ petitioner/appellant herein and we are of the view that no
error is committed by the learned Single Judge. Hence, no
interference is required in the present appeal.
11. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this appeal is
dismissed.
(Vipul M. Pancholi, J)
Rudra Prakash Mishra, J: I agree.
(Rudra Prakash Mishra, J)
Sachin/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE 01.12.2023
Uploading Date 18.12.2023
Transmission Date N.A.
