Jawed Akhtar vs State of Bihar

Mr. Shivaji Pandey, J.(Oral)—Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the private respondents and learned counsel for the state.

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition due to typographical error in place of "respondent No. 15" it has been typed as "petitioner", so he makes a prayer to make necessary correction in paragraph No. 12 of the writ petition. Permission, as prayed for, is granted.

Interlocutory application filed by the petitioner is allowed and the statements made in the Interlocutory Application are treated to be the part of the main writ application.

In the present case, the petitioner is challenging the order dated 20.12.2012 passed in Case No. 83 of 2011, by which the appointment of the petitioner has been set aside and respondent No. 15-Ram Ram Tiwari is directed to be appointed in his place.

An advertisement was published by the Gram Panchayat Raj Paikoli Bado, Block-Phulwaria, District-Gopalganj for appointment of Panchayat Teacher for physically challenged person. The petitioner as well as the respondent No. 15 belong to physically challenged category of male and applied for the said post. The respondent No. 15 has claimed his appointment as Panchayat Teacher on the strength of Inter (Uttar Madhyama) certificate having 81.6% marks, whereas the present petitioner is Intermediate having only 78.66% marks.

Learned counsel for the State has pointed out that the petitioner cannot be given the weightage of 20%. As per the Rules and as per the order of this Court in Baijnath Singh v. The State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 2014 (3) PLJR 606 only 20 marks can be added in total marks of intermediate, then the percentage to be worked out. But, here is the question that whether the respondent No. 15 has requisite qualification for being appointed to the post of Panchayat Teacher as a general teacher as the respondent No. 15 is holding the qualification of Uttar Madhyama from Sampurnanand Sanskrit Vishwavidhyalaya and that qualification has been excluded after the enforcement of 2008 Rules.

It will be relevant to quote the amended portion of Rule-8 Rule-8 (d), which itself makes it very clear that the respondent No. 15 could not have been allowed to participate in the selection of Panchayat Teacher as he does not posses the minimum qualification, which reads as under:-

8- fu;qfDr gsrq%&

d& vgZrk

iz[k.M f''k{kd ds fy, %&

1- Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksa(

2- ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky;@egkfo|ky;@cksMZ ls mPprj ek/;fed@bUVjfefM;V vFkok led{k ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gks fdUrq blds vUrxZr rduhdh f''k{kk dh fMxzh iksfyVsdfud] ;wukuh f''k{kk vkfn ''kkjhfjd f''k{kk] izkP;Hkk"kk@Hkk"kk fo''ks"k ls lEcfU/kr fMxzh ekSyoh] mi ''kkL=h rFkk LoSfPNd laLFkkuksa }kjk iznRr le:i fMxzh foHkkx }kjk fu.khZr lkekU; f''k{kd in ij fu;kstu gsrq lfEefyr ugha gSA

3- jk"V~h; v/;kid f''k{kk ifj"kn~ (N.C.T.E.) }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf''k{k.k laLFkku ls nks o"khZ; f''k{kd izf''k{k.k fMIyksek ;k lfVZfQdsV vFkok izkjfHkad f''k{kk esa Lukrd ch0,y0,M0 vFkok ch0,M0 ds lkFk Lukrd vFkok led{k ;ksX;rkA

''kkjhfjd f''k{kk f''k{kd ds fy, U;wure nks o"kksZa dk lfVZfQdsV (lh0ih0,M0) vFkok led{k ;ksX;rk izkIr gksA

ijUrq bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu izFke ,oa f}rh; fu;kstu esa oSls mEehn~okjksa dk Hkh fu;kstu fd;k tk ldsxk] tks ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; ls eSfV~d vFkok led{k ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gks rFkk jk"V~h; v/;kid f''k{kk ifj"kn~ (N.C.T.E.) vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf''k{k.k fo|ky;@egkfo|ky; ls nks o"kksZa dk f''k{kd izf''k{k.k ijh{kk@ch0,M0@2 o"kksZa dk ''kkjhfjd izf''k{k.k dk lfVZfQdsV (lh0ih0,M0) ikl gksA

Learned counsel for the private respondent No. 15 is not disputing the fact that the degree which the said respondent has obtained is not a requisite qualification for the purposes of appointment of Panchayat Teacher. However, he has pointed out that the degree of the petitioner also suffers from the same illegality as he has not obtained the degree from the proper institution, which has been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has passed the Intermediate Examination from the Bihar Intermediate Council.

As the appointment of the respondent No. 15 cannot be sustained, the order dated 20.12.2012 passed by the Tribunal is set aside. Accordingly, the authority is directed to reinstate the petitioner subject to condition that the District programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj, will examine all the degrees of the petitioner and if it is found that the degrees of the petitioner are genuine, only then the petitioner will be allowed to join the post of Panchayat Teacher. The District programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj, will complete the entire process within a period of three months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

Resultantly, the orders dated 15.03.2013 and 16.03.2013 (Annexures-16 and 17) are also quashed.

With the aforesaid observations and directions, this writ petition is allowed.