Taufique Ahmed Ansari vs State Of Bihar

Alok Kumar Sinha, J

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for respondent nos. 9 and 10 and learned counsel for the State.

The petitioner in the present case has challenged the order passed in Appeal Case No. 429 of 2010 contained in Memo No. 287, dated 22.06.2011 (Annexure-27 to the Interlocutory Application Application), passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui and the consequent order dated 12.07.2017, passed by the State Appellate Authority, Bihar in Case No. 22 of 2017.

The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was possessing better marks than the respondent no. 10 and that despite having better marks, the petitioner was prevented from participating in the counselling, which was held on 28.02.2009, as a result of which, respondent no. 10 with lesser marks than the petitioner was appointed on 14.08.2010. After the respondent no. 10, who as per the petitioner was having lesser marks than the petitioner was appointed, the petitioner challenged the said appointment by filing an appeal before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui on 30.09.2010.

As per learned counsel for the petitioner, the impugned order passed by the District Teachers Appellate Authority on 22.06.2011 is bad in law for the reason that the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui has simply dismissed the appeal filed by the petitioner on the ground of delay without looking into the merits of the case. Aggrieved by this order, when the petitioner challenged the same before the State Appellate Authority, the State Appellate Authority also simply concurred with the finding given by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui and did not bother to examine the merits of the matter.

Being aggrieved by both these orders, the petitioner has filed the present writ application.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 10 submits that the order passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui as well as the State Appellate Authority are both well reasoned and speaking order and, therefore, there is no need to interfere with the orders, which have been impugned in the present writ application.

Learned counsel appearing for respondent no. 9 supports the case of respondent no. 10 and submits that no irregularity or illegality was committed in the entire selection-cum-appointment process and, therefore, the grievance of the petitioner is completely mis-conceived.

After hearing the submissions made by the parties, it is considered appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow the entire order dated 22.06.2011, passed in Appeal Case No. 429 of 2010, by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui, which is as follows:

It is further considered appropriate to reproduce hereinbelow paragraph-7 of the order dated 12.07.2017, passed in Case No. -Appeal 22 of 2017 by the State Appellate Authority, Bihar, which is as follows:-

"The matter relates to the second phase of teachers employment year 2008 for which the schedule of counselling was widely circulated by the Education Department. Several candidates appeared before the Panchayat Employment Committee in response to the notice of counselling and candidates who appeared for counselling were selected on the basis of merit in accordance with the prescribed criteria. Counselling was held on 28.02.2009 and the employment letter was issued to respondent no. (x) on 14.08.2010. The appellant has himself stated in the Memo of Appeal that after getting the knowledge of date of counselling from other sources, he approached the Panchayat Employment

Committee with all original certificates, but his counselling was not done. Original counselling register, merit list of candidates and proceedings book of the Panchayat for 2nd phase of Teachers' employment year 2008 was called for and were received. The appellant is at sl. no.49 of the list of untrained candidates. His name and signature do not appear in the counselling register. In the proceedings register, names of candidates who appeared in the counselling on 28.02.2009 are recorded in which name of the appellant does not appear. The appellant kept quiet after the counselling and filed an appeal after inordinate delay. Therefore, learned District Authority has rightly dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant on the ground of being time barred."

From careful perusal of both the above orders, it clearly emerges that the petitioner did not participate in the counselling, which was held on 28.02.2009 and thereafter instead of immediately agitating against the same, the petitioner kept silent and allowed the entire selection-cum-appointment process to be completed which led to the appointment of respondent no. 10, on 14.08.2010. After completion of the entire selection-cum-appointment process, the petitioner belatedly questioned the appointment on 30.09.2010 by filing a case before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui.

From the reading of both the orders, it is apparent that no sufficient or cogent explanation was given by the petitioner for the inordinate delay in approaching the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui. In fact, from the perusal of the order-sheet dated 30.11.2010 of Appeal No. 429 of 2010, which has been brought on record by way of Annexure-P/28 series in the reply to the supplementary counter affidavit, it appears that the petitioner himself admitted before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui that the petitioner did not lodge any complaint or file any case before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui after he was allegedly deprived from participating in the counsellng, because at that point of time he was studying in Saharanpur (U.P.). This explains the reason, why the petitioner did not participate in the counselling and thereafter also did not file any case immediately when the cause of action had arisen way back on 28.02.2009.

The fact of the matter is that the respondent no. 10 was appointed on 14.08.2010 and since then the respondent no. 10 has been continuing in service. To be upsetting the appointment of respondent no. 10, particularly on the basis of a case lodged by the petitioner after inordinate delay, for which no sufficient explanation was tendered by the petitioner either before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui or before the State Appellate Authority, would not be proper and in the interest of justice.

Upon careful consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case and taking note of the submissions made by all the parties, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Jamui and by the State Appellate Authority, Bihar and hence, the present writ application stands dismissed.