Patna High Court
Pravin Kumar vs The State Of Bihar And Ors on 1 February, 2024
Author: Partha Sarthy
Bench: Partha Sarthy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9352 of 2012
======================================================
Pravin Kumar, Son of Musheb Thakur, Resident of Village-Saidpur, Police
Station- Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Lakhisarai Through
Its Member
3. The Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government Of Bihar, Old
Secretariate, Patna
4. The Deputy Development Commissioner D.D.C., Lakhisarai
5. The Block Development Officer B.D.O., Piparia, Lakhisarai
6. The Mukhiya, Saidpur Gram Panchayat, Police Station-Surajgarha, District-
Lakhisarai
7. The Panchayat Sachiv, Saidpur Gram Panchayat, Police Station-Surajgarha,
District-Lakhisarai
8. Rajniti Pandit, Son of Jagdish Pandit, Resident of Village-Chandanpura,
Police Station-Surajgarha, District-Lakhisarai
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Rikesh Sinha, Advocate
: Ms. Pushpa Sinha, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Mujtabaul Haque, G.P. 12
: Mr. Vasant Vikas, A.C. to G.P. 12
: Mr. Gopal Sharan Singh, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PARTHA SARTHY
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 01-02-2024
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned
counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 and learned counsel for
the respondent no.8.
2. The petitioner in the instant writ application has
prayed for quashing of the order dated 22.12.2011 passed in
Case no.69/10-11 by the District Teachers and Employment
Appellate Authority, Lakhisarai.
Patna High Court CWJC No.9352 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
3. The case of the petitioner in brief is that in the year
2006 being eligible for appointment on the post of Panchayat
Teacher in Saidpur Panchayat, Lakhisarai, on applications being
invited, the petitioner applied for appointment against the EBC
category. Merit list was prepared and the petitioner was
appointed by letter no.5 dated 30.11.2006. As directed the
petitioner gave his joining in the primary school at Anandpur.
He started to work efficiently to the satisfaction of all
concerned.
4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner
that pursuant to complaint filed by the respondent no.8 which
was more than 30 days after the appointment of the petitioner, a
notice was issued to the petitioner to appear. The substance of
the complaint was that a Ram Baran Thakur who is said to have
passed the matriculation examination in the year 1980 and the
petitioner Pravin Kumar who is said to have passed the
matriculation examination in the year 1991 were one and the
same person. Ram Baran Thakur having become over-age for
appointment as a Panchayat Primary Teacher, the petitioner
changed his name to Pravin Kumar and appeared in the
examination and obtained his appointment.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9352 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
allegations are false and malicious. So far as Ram Baran Thakur
is concerned, he was the elder brother of the petitioner. The said
Ram Baran Thakur disappeared in the year 2002. As a result of
the malicious complaint, the proceedings being Panchayat
Teachers Appointment Case no. 2/7-8 was started by the Block
Development Officer who finally by his order dated 15.4.2008
was pleased to set aside the appointment of the petitioner. The
petitioner moved this Court in CWJC no.13887 of 2008 which
was disposed of by order dated 9.9.2010 giving liberty to the
petitioner to file a proper application before the appellate
authority which was to be considered and decided by a speaking
order. As directed the petitioner filed Appeal Case no.69/10-11
before the appellate authority which was rejected vide order
dated 22.12.2011, which is impugned herein.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his
submission referring to the contents of the writ application as
also the order of the appellate authority submits that it would be
evident from the deposition of the statement of the headmaster
of the school who appeared before the appellate authority along
with the documents brought by him which included the identity
cards etc. that both the petitioner and his elder brother Ram
Baran Thakur were two different and distinct persons. It is thus
Patna High Court CWJC No.9352 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
submitted that the appellate authority committed an error in
rejecting the application filed by the petitioner.
7. The application is opposed by the learned counsel
appearing for the State and also learned counsel appearing for
respondent no.8. Learned counsel appearing for respondent no.8
submits that Ram Baran Thakur and the petitioner herein are
one and the same person. It was to overcome the impediment of
being over-age that the petitioner appeared for the second time
in the matriculation examination in the year 1991 and obtained
another matriculation certificate with a different date of birth. In
support of his submissions learned counsel refers to the order of
the appellate authority and more particularly to the statements of
the Panchayat Secretary, the Circle Inspector, various sale deeds
brought on record before the appellate authority as also the
electoral rolls etc. to submit that both the persons are one and
same. It is thus submitted that there is no merit in the instant
application and the same be dismissed.
8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and
having perused the materials on record especially the detailed
order of the appellate authority it transpires that the appellate
authority has taken note of the various oral and documentary
evidence which includes the statements of the headmaster of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.9352 of 2012 dt.01-02-2024
Janta High School, Alinagar, the certificates, the admit cards
issued for the examinations with respect to Ram Baran Thakur
in the year 1980 as also with respect to Pravin Kumar in the
year 1991, the mark of identification with respect to these
students, copies of the registers, certified copies of the cross-list,
the sale deeds filed by the respondent no.9, the electoral roll of
the year 2004, the contents of the sale deed, the statements of
the Panchayat Secretary as also the Circle Inspector besides
other documents. Having perused the order as also the materials
on record, this Court is of the opinion that the instant application
involves disputed questions of fact which cannot be effectively
and properly adjudicated upon in a writ jurisdiction under
Article 226 of the Constitution. The only and effective option
available to the petitioner is to get such declaration, as is sought
for, in a suit before a Court of competent jurisdiction.
9. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case
stated hereinabove, the Court does not find merit in the writ
application and the same is dismissed with the aforesaid liberty.
(Partha Sarthy, J)
ajay/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 02.02.2024
Transmission Date
