Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2888 of 2013. Case: Zaman Rehmani and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.. Patna High Court

Case Number:Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2888 of 2013
Party Name:Zaman Rehmani and Ors. Vs The State of Bihar and Ors.
Counsel:For Appellant: Amarendra Narayan and Deepak Kumar, Advs. and For Respondents: Rajendra Pd. Singh, Sr. Adv. and Nirala Kumar Singh, Adv.
Judges:Shivaji Pandey, J.
Issue:Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 114(g)
Judgement Date:February 03, 2017
Court:Patna High Court
 
FREE EXCERPT

Judgment:

Shivaji Pandey, J.

  1. In the present case, petitioners are challenging the order dated 19th May 2012 (Annexure-1) passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Kishanganj, holding that the claim of petitioners, is not tenable and did not find any illegality in the selection and appointment of Panchayat Teacher.

  2. The matter relates to appointment of Panchayat Teacher of first phase. An Advertisement was published in the year 2006, inviting application for General Teacher as well for Urdu Teacher in Gram Panchayat-Dohar, Block Bahadurganj, District-Kishanganj. Altogether 22 posts of Panchayat Teacher were advertised, out of which, 09 posts were for Urdu subject and 13 posts were for General subject and out of 22 posts, 20 posts were filled up and 02 posts remained unfilled. Out of 20 posts, one Md. Aslam tendered his resignation.

  3. According to the pleading of the parties, petitioner No. 1, Zaman Rehmani belongs to General category candidate, having 71.05% of marks and petitioner No. 2, Tajalli Sofia has secured 72.17% of marks and she also belongs to General category candidate applied for Urdu post of Teacher.

  4. Petitioner No. 1 is contesting his case with Md. Azimudin (Respondent Nos. 12) and Tanbir Zaki (Respondent No. 13), claiming that he has better marks than Respondent Nos. 12 and 13, as Md. Azimudin, Respondent No. 12 has secured 68% of marks and Tanbir Zaki, Respondent No. 13 has secured 70.44% of marks whereas petitioner No. 2 is challenging the appointment of Respondent Nos. 9 to 11, claiming that she has better marks than Respondent Nos. 9 to 11 as Shaista Parveen (Respondent No. 9) has secured 70.58% of marks, Anjuman Ara (Respondent No. 10) has secured 64.66% of marks and Mustari Begam (Respondent No. 11) has secured 70.58% of marks.

  5. Altogether, for 22 posts, 728 candidates applied, out of that, 453 candidates were for General subject Teacher and 275 persons were for Urdu subject Teacher aforesaid posts were divided in the following manner:-

    UR (Male) 06, UR (Female) 05, EBC (Male) 02, EBC (Female) 01, BC (Male) 01, BC (Female) 02, SC (Male) 02, SC (Female) 02 and Reserved Female-01 post.

  6. The first counseling was conducted on 15th, 16th, 17th and 18th January 2007. The petitioners appeared for counseling on 16th January 2007. Another counseling was conducted on the direction the Block Development Officer on 7th March 2007, in which, petitioner No. 1 was not called and petitioner No. 2 did not appear and the panel was prepared on 21st July 2007 by the Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya.

  7. In the present case, claim has been made that the entire selection process suffers from illegality, as petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, being General category candidates, applied for Urdu subject Teacher, having been rejected on illegal ground. Claim has been made by the petitioners that there was a single form for all the candidates, either they have applied for General subject Teacher or Urdu subject Teacher.

  8. The petitioners being Maulvi, have also applied for Urdu subject Teacher, but claim has been made by the petitioners that there was no separate column indicating whether the persons have applied for General subject or Urdu subject.

  9. As per the case of the petitioners, there was no separate nature of form for Urdu category candidate or General category candidate, single form was prescribed for both (General and Urdu) categories of candidate and the Unit was obliged to separate the forms of candidates, those who were holding Maulvi degree, were eligible for Urdu subject and the persons, who were holding General degree, were to be separated for General subject of Teacher.

  10. As per the claim of the petitioners, in terms of Rules, 2006, the legislature has not prescribed separate column in the form for Urdu subject and for General subject..

  11. It has been submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that the Appointment Unit has wrongly treated the petitioners to have applied for General subject Teacher in view of fact that they were/are holding Maulvi degree, were/are to be treated for the post of Urdu Teacher. As the person holding Maulvi degree, cannot be appointed as teacher of General subject.

  12. The petitioners belong to General category candidates and Respondent Nos. 12 and 13 were also from the General category candidate, but petitioner No. 1 has wrongly been shown that he had applied for the post of General subject Teacher whereas Rule 06 provides that the person holding Maulvi degree, can only be appointed on the post of Urdu subject Teacher, not on the post of Teacher of General subject. With respect to petitioner No. 2-Tajalli Safia, it has been said that she has better marks than Respondent Nos. 9 to 11, they were wrongly appointed in General category candidate whereas they are holding Maulvi degree, can only be appointed in Urdu subject. This is the manipulation has been engineered with a view to accommodate them and to deprive her.

  13. If the selection process would have rightly been followed by the Panchayat Unit then petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 could not have been ignored to be appointed as Panchayat Teacher.

  14. The counsel for the petitioners, in support of his...

To continue reading

REQUEST YOUR TRIAL