Patna High Court
Baijmanti Kumari vs The State Of Bihar on 3 October, 2024
Author: P. B. Bajanthri
Bench: P. B. Bajanthri, Alok Kumar Pandey
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL REVIEW No.116 of 2021
In
Letters Patent Appeal No.965 of 2019
======================================================
Baijmanti Kumari W/o Raj Kishore Prasad Resident of Village- Beldari
Bigha, P.O.- Mandach, P.S.- Telhara, Dist- Nalanda, At Present working as
Panchayat Teacher in Primary School Kaluachak, Prakhand Jehanabad, Dist-
Jehanabad.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Appellate Authority (Education Department Bihar) at Patna.
4. The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jehanabad through
its Members.
5. The Members of District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority
Jehanabad.
6. The District Magistrate, Jehanabad.
7. The District Education Officer, District- Jehanabad.
8. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Jehanabad.
9. The Block Education Officer, Jehanabad.
10. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj- Mande Bigha, Prakhand- Jehanabad.
11. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat- Mande Bigha, Prakhand-
Jehanabad.
12. Mirdula Kumari W/O Praveen Kumar Resident of Village- Makhdumpur,
P.S.- Alipur, Dist- Gaya.
... ... Opposite Party/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Dinu Kumar, Adv
Ms. Ritika Rani, Adv
Mr. Vardhan Monglem, Adv
For Respondent No. 12 : Mr. Amaresh Kumar Singh, Adv
Mr. Dineshwar Prasad Singh
For the State : Mr. S.S. Tiwary AC to AAG-15
For the B.D.O : Mr. Anil Mishra
For the Panchayat Secretary : Mr. Amit Kumar
======================================================
Patna High Court C. REV. No.116 of 2021 dt.03-10-2024
2/5
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK KUMAR PANDEY
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 03-10-2024
In the instant Civil Review petition, Review-
Petitioner has sought for review of the order dated
24.02.2021
passed in LPA No. 965 of 2019. Grievance
of the review petitioner is in respect of selection and
appointment to the post of Panchayat Teacher. The
purpose of filing the present Civil Review is to the
extent that co-ordinate Bench has committed error
insofar as calculation of percentage of marks among the
review petitioner and 12th Respondent- Mridula Kumari.
The matter was heard from time to time. Ultimately, we
have given a direction to the concerned official
Respondent to furnish comparative merit among the
petitioner and the 12th Respondent. The same has been
filed in the form of counter affidavit on behalf of 9 th
Respondent alongwith Annexure-A Letter dated
08.08.2006. In para 16, it is stated as under:
That the comparative position of the
aforesaid two would be more vivid from
Patna High Court C. REV. No.116 of 2021 dt.03-10-2024
the tabular chart pended herein below.
Mridula Kumari Baijmati Kumari
12th Respondent Review petitioner
Intermediate 594 (which was 383 (without
inclusive of marks including marks of
examination obtained in optional/ optional/ additional
additional subject) subject) + 20
weightage marks for
teaching experience
Percentage 66.9 62.55
But after excluding the marks obtained in
additional/optional subject, by the aforesaid
Mridula Kumari/12th respondent, in
Intermediate examination, her percentage
would have come to 59.55% and as such the
correct merit point of Mridula Kumari should
been 59.55%, which was comparatively less
than Baijmati Kumari/ review petitioner.
2. Learned counsel for the Review petitioner submitted
that vocational marks obtained by the 12 th Respondent in
Intermediate is required to be excluded. On this point, he
has failed to apprise that Rules of Recruitment governing
the Panchayat Teacher of the year 2006, provides for
exclusion of marks awarded for vocational is to be
excluded. In Rule 9 of Rules, 2006 there is no iota of
material to the extent that while taking percentage of marks
from matriculation, Higher Secondary/Intermediate to the
extent of marks to be excluded of vocational subject. There
is no words incorporated to the extent of calculation of
Patna High Court C. REV. No.116 of 2021 dt.03-10-2024
percentage in the event of Intermediate, vocational course
marks is required to be excluded. Therefore, comparative
merit has been taken into consideration that 12 th Respondent
is more merited than the review petitioner.
3. Learned counsel for the review petitioner submitted
that Section 23 of The Right of Children To Free And
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is required to be taken
into consideration, in that event, Respondent is not entitled
to selection and appointment. In the light of Section 23 of
the Act, 2009 of the Central Government, corresponding
amendment to Rules 2006 has not been undertaken by the
State Government. Therefore, Section 23 of The Right of
Children To Free And Compulsory Education Act, 2009
cannot be taken into consideration. Assuming that Section
23 of The Right of Children To Free And Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 is taken into consideration, in that
event, petitioner is also not entitled. That apart, the date of
advertisement is of the year 2008 therefore, whatever the
Rules existing with reference to Rules 2006 for the purpose
of selection and appointment to the post of Panchayat
Teacher is required to be taken into consideration. In other
Patna High Court C. REV. No.116 of 2021 dt.03-10-2024
words, The Right of Children To Free And Compulsory
Education Act, 2009 introduced subsequent to the date of
advertisement for the post unless and until advertisement is
modified and date of process of recruitment is modified.
Any Provision of The Right of Children To Free And
Compulsory Education Act, 2009 is not binding on the
present recruitment for the year 2008, since process of
recruitment was already set in motion the principle of game
changer is not attracted. Moreover, 12th Respondent is
already working for the last 14 years. Accordingly, review
petitioner has not made out a case.
4. Civil Review No. 116 of 2021 stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
( Alok Kumar Pandey, J)
vashudha/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 07.10.2024
Transmission Date NA
