Usha Bharti Wife Of Shri Dinesh Kumar Ram vs The State Of Bihar

Heard counsel for the parties.

The appellant was the petitioner before the learned

single Judge whose order dated 24.06.2013 is under challenge. The

learned single Judge dismissed the writ application refusing to

interfere with the order dated 03.10.2012 passed by the District

Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Katihar, which had found

the appointment of the present appellant to be illegal, manipulated

and the Panchayat deliberately defeated the right of consideration of

the private respondent No.6 even though she had 55.11% marks,

whereas the appellant had 49.88% marks.

Counsel for the appellant submits that there was no

occasion for the Tribunal to reconsider the matter when in an earlier

appeal, which was case No.1546 of 2009, filed by the present

appellant, the Tribunal decided in her favour and her order of

removal passed by the Block Development Officer was set aside and

she was ordered to be reinstated, but ignoring the previous

adjudication the Tribunal has had a turn around and passed an order

holding her appointment to be bad.

The previous order of the Tribunal is an non-est order

because that order was obtained without impleading private

respondent No.6 as a party and the order was passed on the

submissions and the pleadings of the present appellant and it was an

one sided adjudication. The private respondent, therefore, filed a writ

application and was permitted to go before the Tribunal and assert

her right which has now been adjudicated in her favour, by the

Tribunal, after looking into the records and the manner in which the

counselling was held and the way the Panchayat created a sham of an

information or notice under the U.P.C. even before a decision was

taken to inform the short listed candidates. The narration of facts and

finding both by the Tribunal and upheld by the learned single Judge

does not require to be interfered with. The facts are telling. The

appointment of the appellant was manipulated and the effort on the

part of the appellant has been to find ways and means to hang on to

the appointment when she knew all along that somebody more

meritorious than her was deliberately prevented from participation

and selection in the category of Scheduled Caste, as both of them

belong to the same caste.

The learned single Judge has rightly refused to interfere

with the order of the Tribunal. The previous order of the Tribunal to

that extent will be of no help and assistance to the present appellant

because such order is not the issue before us, it is the subsequent

adjudication and the finding of the Tribunal, which has been upheld

by the learned single Judge, correctness of which is to be tested on

the touchstone of the fact and law.

The appeal has no merit. It is dismissed.