Patna High Court
Pramod Kumar Saksaina @ Pramod Kumar ... vs The State Of Bihar on 16 January, 2024
Author: Rajiv Roy
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajiv Roy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.549 of 2022
======================================================
Pramod Kumar Saksaina @ Pramod Kumar Saxena Son of Ramanand Prasad
Bhagat Resident of Village- Bhadas Dakshini, P.S. and District- Khagaria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human
Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Khagaria.
4. The District Education Officer, Khagaria.
5. The Block Education Officer, Khagaria.
6. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bela Simari, District- Khagaria.
7. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bela Simari, District- Khagaria.
8. Indradeo Pandit Son of Late Barun Pandit Resident of Village and P.O.- Bela
Simari, P.S. and District- Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, Sr. Advocate
For the State : Mr. Sarvesh Kumar Singh, AAG-13
For respondent : Mr. Brisketu Sharan Pandey, Advocate
Mr. Abhisekh Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV ROY)
Date : 16-01-2024
The present appeal is directed against the order
dated 23.9.2022 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C.
No. 13233 of 2019 by which the writ petition was allowed
setting aside the order dated 17.5.2019 passed by the Bihar State
Appellate Authority, Patna (henceforth for short 'the Appellate
Authority') in Appeal Case No. 74 of 2018.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2022 dt.16-01-2024
2/7
2. The matrix of facts giving rise to the present
appeal is/are as follows:
3. The case of the petitioner is that the first merit
list of 166 candidates for selection of Panchyat Teachers in the
gram panchayat raj Bela Simari in the district of Khagaria were
published on 8.11.2006. The appellant not being in the list filed
objection on 10.11.2006 alongwith some others whose names
were also missing in the list. On consideration of objections as
per rule 9, final merit list was published on 30.11.2006 in which
his name was included.
4. Accordingly, the appellant was appointed on
30.11.2006
as Panchayat Teacher under the EBC handicapped
category pursuant to the advertisement published in the year
2006 for the appointment of Panchayat Teacher whereafter he
joined the Primary School, Gachhi Tola, Bela Simari on
4.12.2006. He received honorarium till June 2008 whereafter it
was stopped.
5. As his honorarium was stopped, the appellant
filed Case No. 11-01 of 2011 before the District Teachers
Employment Authority, Khagaria (henceforth the short 'the
Employment Authority') for payment of his arrears as well as
current honorarium. However, 'the Employment Authority' vide
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2022 dt.16-01-2024
an order dated 20.12.2013 held that the merit list was published
on 8.11.2006 and thereafter he was wrongly selected on a
purported merit list of 30.11.2006. As such, direction was
given to the 'Mukhiya' and Panchayat Secretary for his removal
with further direction to fill up the vacancy created by the
removal of appellant.
6. The appellant thereafter challenged the said
order before the High Court by filing CWJC No. 5191/2014.
The said writ application was permitted to be withdrawn vide
an order dated 22.11.2017 with liberty to prefer an appeal
before 'the Appellate Authority'.
7. Meanwhile, during the pendency of writ
application, the respondent No. 8 was appointed on 17.10.2014
on the post vacated by the appellant. The appellant herein, has
challenged the order of 'the Employment Authority' as also the
appointment of respondent no.8 before 'the Appellate
Authority', Patna by preferring Appeal No. 74/2018.
8. 'The Appellate Authority', vide an order dated
17.5.2019 allowed the appeal setting aside the order dated
20.12.2013 passed by 'the Employment Authority'. As such the
respondent no.8 had to give way to appellant herein.
9. It was now the turn of the respondent No. 8 to
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2022 dt.16-01-2024
challenge the order dated 17.5.2019 by filing CWJC No. 13233
of 2019. The same was allowed vide an order dated 23.9.2022
and the order of 'the Appellate Authority' dated 17.5.2019 was
set aside.
10. Aggrieved, the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant herein.
11. Mr. Basant Kumar Choudhary, learned Senior
Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the
learned Writ Court completely erred in not taking note of the
fact that pursuant to the merit list prepared on 8.11.2006, the
appellant had filed objection. Some other aggrieved persons
who were left out also filed their respective representation(s).
Accordingly, the second merit list came into existence on
30.11.2006 by which the number of candidates went up from
166 to 171.
12. As he was the most eligible person under EBC
handicapped category, the selection letter was issued to him
whereafter he took up the teaching work. However, his
honorarium was stopped from July, 2008. The appellant
preferred an appeal before 'the Employment Authority' but on
erroneous ground, the same was rejected vide an order dated
20.12.2013 holding that the merit list is false and forged. 'The
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2022 dt.16-01-2024
Employment Authority' also gave direction for taking up fresh
process of selection which resulted into the selection of
respondent no.8.
13. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that
'the Appellate Authority' took the right view that he was having
higher academic qualification and was selected under the EBC
disabled category on 30.11.2006 in the second merit list.
14. He as such submits that the learned Single
Judge erroneously held that the second merit list prepared on
30.11.2006 was found to be forged while allowing the writ
petition. He further submitted that the learned Single Judge
erroneously held that 'the Appellate Authority' sitting in
Appellate Jurisdiction was not justified in approving the merit
list dated 30.11.2006 in the background of the fact that the
report of the enquiry conducted by the Regional Education
Officer on 24.09.2008 had held otherwise. He as such submits
that the order needs interference.
15. Learned counsel for the respondent no.8 on the
other hand submitted that he was selected after the cancellation
of the appointment of the appellant in view of the fact that the
merit list prepared on 30.11.2006 was found to be forged. He
was appointed on 17.10.2014 and was performing his duty. He
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2022 dt.16-01-2024
was for the first time impleaded as party at the appellate stage
and as such, the learned Single Judge rightly passed the order in
question.
16. We have gone through the facts of the case and
the materials on record. It is difficult for us to accept the
submissions put forward by the learned Senior Counsel for the
appellant. A merit list was prepared for the appointment of the
Panchayat Teachers in Bela Simari under the Gram Panchayat
Raj Bela Simari in the district of Khagaria on 8.11.2006 in
which 166 candidates were selected. Admittedly, the appellant
was not in the said list.
17. He claims that subsequently upon his
objection, the second merit list was prepared on 30.11.2006 in
which, beside him, the names of four others, who had filed their
respective objections were incorporated. If that was so, the
merit list dated 30.11.2006 which the Regional Enquiry Officer
has found to be forged must have contained the statement that
pursuant to the selection list prepared on 8.11.2006, certain
objections came, enquiry held and the objections having been
found to be correct, the fresh merit list prepared incorporating
the left over names.
18. In absence of that, it is clear that there was only
Patna High Court L.P.A No.549 of 2022 dt.16-01-2024
one merit list, i.e. the list dated 8.11.2006 and the subsequent
list cannot be given any credence in the backdrop of the enquiry
held by the official respondents. The subsequent list dated
30.11.2006 was created to help the appellant who found favour
with the respondents. Once, the selection of the appellant was
cancelled, in the subsequent selection process, the respondent
no.7 was found suitable under the EBC handicapped category
and accordingly selected.
19. The writ Court was thus perfectly justified in
taking note of the aforesaid facts and setting aside the order
passed by 'the Appellate Authority'. We are in full agreement
with the order dated 23.9.2022 passed by the learned Single
Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 13233 of 2019 and the same needs no
interference.
20. The Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed.
(K. Vinod Chandran, CJ)
( Rajiv Roy, J)
Ravi/-
AFR/NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date 22.01.2024
Transmission Date
