Rabia Khatoon, D/o Mohiuddin Ahmad vs The State of Bihar

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners; State and

respondent no. 6.

Despite valid service of notice on respondents no. 5, 7

and 8, nobody has appeared on their behalf when the case was taken

up and heard.

The petitioners have moved the Court for the

following reliefs:

"That this application is being filed for quashing of the order dated 14/3/2016 passed in Appeal No. 118 of 2011 and Appeal No. 367 of 2011 by the District Appellate Authority, Aurangabad by which the District Appellate Committee has held that the Employment Committee of Karsaon Gram Panchayat in Block- Obra, District- Aurangabad has committed serious irregularity and ultimately he has quashed the all appointments made by the said Employment Committee and has directed to take necessary steps for employment observing procedure prescribed, by issuing an appropriate writ and further directing the Respondents Nos. 5 & 6 not to remove the petitioners from the post of Panchayat Teacher".

In essence, the grievance is that the District Teachers

Employment Appellate Authority, Aurangabad (hereinafter referred

to as the ''Authority''), has held their appointment to be illegal only

on the ground that the respondents no. 7 and 8 having higher merit

were not informed of the date fixed for counselling.

Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that the

date for counselling was fixed by the Department itself which was

published in the newspaper. It was submitted that on that day, i.e.,

28.02.2009, the petitioners had appeared in the counselling.

However, subsequently also date was fixed i.e., 13.08.2010 and

14.08.2010 in which also the petitioners had appeared, but

respondents no. 7 and 8 had not appeared in any of the counselling. It

was further submitted that there is documentary evidence to indicate

that the respondent no. 7 had appeared for counselling at another

Panchayat on the same day. Learned counsel submitted that the

reason why the Authority has interfered is that there was no proof of

communication of the date fixed for counselling, to the respondents

no. 7 and 8.

Learned counsel for the State is not in a position to

controvert the fact that the date for counselling was published in the

newspaper.

Learned counsel for the respondent no. 6 submitted

that the counselling, which was in terms of the date fixed by the

Department and published in the newspaper, the petitioners had

appeared and the respondents no. 7 and 8 had not appeared.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the

case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court

finds the order impugned to be unsustainable. When the admitted

position is that twice the date for counselling was fixed, which was

also published in the newspaper by the Department, and the

petitioners having appeared in such counselling, and also the

admitted position being that the respondents no. 7 and 8 did not

appear, the ground for interfering just because they had higher marks

and that there was no proof to indicate that they were aware of the

dates fixed, is untenable. Publication in the newspaper is notice to all

and, further, just because a person has a higher merit, his case cannot

be suo motu considered unless he fulfills the requirement of

appearing before the Selection Committee on the date fixed for

counselling. In the present case, admittedly the respondents no. 7

and 8 never appeared for counselling.

Accordingly, the order impugned dated 14.03.2016

passed in Appeals No. 118 of 2011 and 367 of 2011, by the

Authority stands quashed. The petitioners shall be deemed to have

been continuing on their post right from the date they were appointed

uninterruptedly and shall also be entitled to all consequential

benefits.

The writ petition stands allowed in the

aforementioned terms.