Decided on August 13,2014

Karamvir Kumar Singh And Ors. Appellant


- (1.)The petitioners have challenged an order dated 17.9.2009 passed by the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Tribunal, Jamui as well as an order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the Block Development Officer, Jamui. It is the case of the petitioners that they had applied for appointment to the post of Panchayat Teachers for the Gram Panchayat Raj, Chaudiha under the District of Jamui and they were duly selected by a committee constituted under Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 2006 Rules), they were appointed accordingly. Certain complaints against the said selection process were made before the Block Development Officer, Jamui who happened to be the Appellate Authority under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules. The Appellate Authority under 2006 Rules vide an order dated 11.9.2007 set aside the entire selection process, pursuant to which the petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Teachers. The Appellate Authority cancelled the appointment of all Panchayat Teachers including these petitioners accordingly and directed the Appointment Committee to take steps for filling up the vacancies in accordance with law. The petitioners by that time had already completed six months of their service as Panchayat Teachers pursuant to their selection and appointment. They approached this Court by filing writ applications vide C.W.J.C. No. 12874 of 2007 (petitioner No. 1) and C.W.J.C. No. 12868 of 2007 (petitioner No. 2) questioning the order of Appellate Authority i.e. Block Development Officer whereby their appointments were cancelled. The petitioners however took liberty from this Court to approach the Appellate Tribunal, constituted under Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 as during the pendency of the writ applications, District Teachers Appellate Tribunals came to be constituted and appellate power which earlier vested in the Block Development Officer under Rule 18 came to be conferred upon the Appellate Tribunal. In view of such liberty as sought for, this Court vide order dated 13.7.2009 disposed of the writ applications with a direction to the Tribunal to consider the matter and decide within two months from the date of filing of the writ application. By an interim order dated 20.1.2009 passed by this Court in those cases, the Respondents were restrained from issuing any appointment letters in favour of any candidate. While disposing of the writ applications by order dated 13.7.2009, this Court did not observe that the said interim order dated 20.1.2009 shall have any effect after disposal of the writ applications. The petitioners thereafter approached the Tribunal, upon which the Tribunal passed the order dated 17.9.2009, which is impugned in the present application. The petitioners' claims against cancellation of their appointments were not acceded to by the Tribunal.
(2.)This is to be noted that Block Development Officer, the Appellate Authority vide order dated 11.9.2007 had set aside the selection and appointment of Panchayat Teachers including these petitioners on following three grounds:--
"I. Merit list prepared on 18.3.2007 for counselling on 20.3.2007 was not approved by the Gram Panchayat, in contravention of Rule 9(ix) of 2006 Rules.

II. The panel was published on 18.3.2007 and counselling held on 20.3.2007 which was also contrary to Rule 9(vii) of the Rules.

III. All selected candidates were not informed and only those who were available in counselling were appointed."

(3.)This has to be kept in mind that order dated 11.9.2007 passed by the Block Development Officer, was a statutory appellate order passed in exercise of power under Rule 18 of 2006 Rules which powers was subsequently conferred upon the District Teachers Appellate Tribunal.

Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.