Ravindra Ram vs State Of Bihar And Ors

Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J

Heard learned counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State.

Writ Application of the private-respondent no. 8, who was the petitioner, came to be allowed by the Learned Single Judge, vide order dated

16.08.2016. The Learned Single Judge allowed the writ application for the reason that the private-respondent figured in the panel at Sr. No. 2, but

instead of appointing him, in absence of non-joining of person at Sr. No. 1, the present appellant, who was private-respondent no. 8 in the writ

application, came to be accommodated by the Gram Panchayat. This decision of the Gram Panchayat came to be revisited and the private-respondent

/ the writ petitioner came to be appointed since he was at Sr. No. 2. Subsequently, on the basis of a communication based on certain judicial directions,

issued by the writ courts, a copy of which is Annexure â€" 17 to the writ and is dated 05.07.2010, the Gram Panchayat again chanced upon the

opportunity to remove the writ petitioner and reappoint the present appellant, misreading the Advisory that since the appointment of the writ petitioner

was made on 23.08.2010, which is after the cut-off date on 31.01.2008, the decision of the Gram Panchayat to appoint the private-respondent no. 8

was set aside.

The Learned Single Judge has dealt with the matter and explained the Advisory of the Secretary of Panchayati Raj Department, dated 05.07.2010 by

explaining it that the exercise for appointment on the post of Secretary, Gram Kuchahary was already completed prior to the cut-off date, which is

31.01.2008, as the merit panel was prepared on 22.10.2007 itself, the appointment thereafter was required to be made of the person by merit position

and since the person at Sr. No. 1 chose not to join, private-respondent No. 8 at Sr. No. 2 ought to have been appointed, but instead of doing so, the

present appellant at Sr. No. 3 came to be accommodated.

By no interpretation or understanding can the appointment of the writ petitioner be said to be beyond the cut-off date, i.e., 31.01.2008, because the

appointment which rightly belonged to the private-respondent no. 8 of the appeal, was snatched away from him by an illegal appointment made of the

present appellant and it was only a rectification of that arbitrary decision, which was done in the year 2010. Therefore, it cannot be treated to be a

case of appointment, post 31.01.2008 and the Advisory, so issued.

Counsel for the appellant submits that because the private-respondent / petitioner was holding Madhyama degree, that was the reason for the

Panchayat to ignore his claim. However, it is evident that the Madhyama is equivalent to matriculation and the same could not be created as a bar for

consideration. The series of orders / decisions, which have been passed by the writ court, has taken note of such facts and, therefore, the Advisory

came to be issued on 05.10.2007.

In fact a reading of the Advisory would indicate that all such persons, who were holder of Madhyama degree, were required to be appointed by

removing a person, if already appointed, if his case was not considered, because of the Madhyama degree.

The present case, in fact, is covered by the Advisory in the sense that the petitioner / respondent no. 8 had a right for appointment to the post of

Secretary, Gram Kachahary, which was wrongly denied to him and the same Advisory cannot be misread to restore the present appellant on the

ground that a direction was issued to remove and appoint, but not to interfere with the earlier appointments already made prior to 31.01.2008. The

context of the Advisory in our opinion also has been wrongly read and used to get rid of the services of the private-respondent.

The Learned Single Judge has committed no error in allowing the writ application.

Appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.