AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Heard learned Senior Counsel for the appellant and
counsel for the respondents.
Respondent no. 8 in the Writ Application is the appellant
in this Letters Patent Appeal. This is so because the learned Single
Judge vide order dated 18.09.2014 set aside the order of the District
Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Begusarai and gave a
direction to appoint the private respondent no. 8 of the Letters Patent
Appeal, who happened to be the petitioner in the Writ Application
being CWJC No. 14786/2010.
An exercise for appointment on the post of Panchayat
Teacher was initiated in Gram Panchayat Raj, Ramdiri III. Besides the
present appellant and the private respondent, there were other
applicants but we are concerned about the appointment made on the
post, by the Gram Panchayat of the present appellant, even though she
had lesser percentage of marks than the private respondent.
The private respondent was given the letter of
appointment by the Gram Panchayat because she figured higher in the
merit list than the present appellant but it is her case that even though
she went to the Panchayat on 26.02.2007 to give her consent for such
appointment, she was not allowed to give the consent because there
was nobody to receive it. When the consent was not taken on
26.02.2007 till 4:30 in the afternoon, she was assured, in absence of
the Panchayat Secretary, by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat that
the formality would be completed on the next day and she should
report by 11:00 A.M. Even on 27.02.2007 nothing emerged because
this time the Mukhiya went missing and later on she came to learn
that on the ground of non-submission of consent by the private
respondent, person lower in merit than the appellant came to be
appointed.
The private respondent has been knocking at the doors of
various authorities, i.e., the District Education Officer, the District
Magistrate and even the Chief Minister of the State. She got some
relief in the sense that her complaint addressed to the Chief Minister
was marked to the authorities who forwarded it to the District
Teachers Employment Appellate Authority for adjudication and the
District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority primarily on the
ground that in absence of a very clear evidence that consent was not
taken by the Gram Panchayat on 26.02.2007 and that the appellant,
who came to be appointed, has been working as such for almost three
years and the appeal was brought before the tribunal after almost three
years of such appointment dismissed the application which led to
filing of the Writ Application.
Learned Senior Counsel representing the present
appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has committed errors
of facts and law because the tribunal in its well considered decision
held that no case was made out with regard to the private respondent
having presented herself before the authorities for giving her consent.
All these seems to be an afterthought and that is the reason why the
tribunal dismissed the appeal of the private respondent which was
interfered with by the learned Single Judge by setting aside the
appointment of the appellant and directing the respondents to appoint
the private respondent.
If the private respondent whose consistent case is that
she did go before the Mukhiya and the Gram Panchayat for giving her
consent which was not taken and she did quickly respond by moving
the District Education Officer on 27.02.2007 itself and then the
District Magistrate thereafter, then the stand of the learned Senior
Counsel that since she has approached the tribunal at a belated stage
so the grievance should be held to be an afterthought is not correct.
There is evidence to show that she has been trying to assert her right
and seek redressal of a wrong committed against her by not being
appointed. The delay was caused in approaching the tribunal because
of lack of proper instruction and guidance to her.
In addition to that, this Court has come across hundreds
of cases of such kind where a person with more merit and marks is
deliberately not allowed to either participate in the counseling or the
Panchayat does not accept the consent on the fixed date so that they
get an opportunity to appoint a person lesser in merit for obvious
considerations. Such kind of game has been played out even in the
present case and that is the reason why the learned Single Judge set
aside the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate
Authority dated 17.07.2010 and held that since the private respondent
had more merit and she was deliberately prevented from giving her
consent on 26.07.2007, the appointment of the present appellant was
per se a fraud played with the system to accommodate her at the cost
of the private respondent no. 8.
In the above circumstances, no interference is warranted
with the order of the learned Single Judge dated 18.09.2014. It is a fit
case where in fact an order should have been passed for prosecution of
the Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya but since the Mukhiya is
dead and the Panchayat Secretary too must have moved on in the last
10 years, the Court refrains from passing such a direction.
The appeal is dismissed being devoid of merit.