PURUSHOTTAM PATHAK Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh learned counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, Mr. Arun Kumar as well as Mr. Virendra. Kumar learned counsels appearing for various private respondents and AC to SC-26 for the State. 12 number of posts of Panchayat Teacher fell for appointment within Gram Panchayat Kothiyaray in the District of Sitamarhi, On completion of the selection process the petitioners herein were selected and appointed. The appointment(s) were made on various dates in the year 2010. Aggrieved by the aforesaid selection of the writ petitioners and non-selection of the private respondents herein diverse appeals/complaints were filed before the Tribunal constituted under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment & Service Condition) Rules, 2006. Some of the authorities who constituted the selection committee also made such complaint before the Tribunal alleging several irregularities made in such selection. The Tribunal, by a common order dated 6.4.2011, disposed of the appeals whereby finding the entire selection process having been completed in a gross irregular/illegal manner the same was/were cancelled and the respondent(s) was directed to re-initiate fresh process of selection from the stage of counselling in accordance with the Rules and the provisions governing such selection. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioners have filed the present writ petition.

(2.) Diverse counter affidavit(s) have been filed on behalf of the private respondents. The petitioners have filed rejoinder thereto. Although notice was issued and served on respondent No. 7 (Mukhiya) and the respondent No. 8 (Panchayat Secretary) of the concerned Gram Panchayat but no counter affidavit has been filed. A counter affidavit on behalf of the District Education Officer-cum-D.P.O. (Establishment), Sitamarhi has been filed supporting the order passed by the Tribunal.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners, while assailing the order passed by the Tribunal, submits that several materials were placed by the petitioners before the Tribunal but none of them has been considered by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was swayed by the statement of the then Panchayat Secretary namely Kailash Panjiar who had, on his own, appeared in the said proceeding and made statement. It is next contended that Tribunal being the fact finding Court/Authority was required to examine relevant documents furnished by the petitioners and the State respondents and thereafter an order could have been passed recording finding(s) based on appraisal of those records/materials. Learned counsel has drawn attention of the Court to the order of the Tribunal in order to submits that the Tribunal having considered the submissions of the appellant and the statement made by the ex-Panchayat Secretary only perused the Proceeding Register and recorded a finding that the same appeared to have been created clandestinely on one day which was written in one pen/handwriting. He has further submitted that prior to the complaint lodged before the Tribunal the matter was also enquired by the Block Development Officer. A report in this regard was called for and submitted by the authority copy whereof has been enclosed as Annexure-8. The Tribunal, in all fairness, ought to have examined the same before coming to any conclusion. The order, therefore, merits interference since the findings recorded by the Tribunal is not based on appraisal of all relevant facts/circumstances which were placed before the Tribunal. If there was any doubt, the Tribunal could have also called for a report from the concerned authority. It has been pointed out from the affidavits filed on behalf of some of the respondents that one. of them had already appeared in the counselling in different Gram Panchayat and has already been selected/appointed. She is still working as such. Any such grievance about non-selection in the said case would not hold water.