Ramesh Mahto v. The State of Bihar

3/7

petitioners submitted that the petitioners' name figured in the select list which was published on 25.02.2009 and the same was not implemented by appointing the petitioners on the post of Panchayat Teacher in accordance with the provision of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2006'). Thereafter, the petitioners preferred appeal before the District Appellate Authority, Saran at Chhapra.

4. The District Appellate Authority directed the Employment Unit to proceed with the appointment process within a period of two months. The direction of the District Appellate Authority was not complied and the petitioners were forced to approach this Court by filing C.W.J.C. No. 8065 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 8999 of 2019.

5. This Court vide order dated 19.04.2019 and 24.04.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 8065 of 2019 and C.W.J.C. No. 8999 of 2019 respectively directed the District Magistrate, Saran at Chhapra to ensure compliance of the order dated 25.03.2017 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Saran in case No. 15 of 2016, as also the order dated 30.08.2018 passed by the said Appellate Authority in Execution Case No. 48 of 2017.

6. The respondents challenged the order dated

4/7

25.03.2017 passed by the District Appellate Authority in Case No. 15 of 2016 before the State Appellate Authority. The State Appellate Authority after considering the entire facts of the case, as well as, the Resolution contained in Memo No. 465 dated 09.07.2012, particularly Clause '3' of the said Resolution, directed the respondents to consider the claim of the petitioners and had also directed the respondent Employment Unit to seek due approval with regard to the vacancy from the competent authority of the Government. Learned counsel has referred Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2012'), which saves all the past action taken and as such he contends that the condition contained in Sub Clause '3' is required to be carried by the said authority.

7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State submitted that as on date he has no instruction in respect of the subsequent development which was required to be carried out in compliance of the judgment and order passed by the State Appellate Authority dated 15.12.2020 passed in Appeal No. 191/2019, however, he has also submitted that the Rules, 2006 has been repealed by Rules, 2012 and Rules, 2012 has subsequently been repealed by the the Bihar Panchayat Elementary School Service (Appointment, Promotion, Transfer,

5/7

Disciplinary Proceedings and Service Conditions) Rules, 2020 (hereinafter referred to as 'Rules, 2020) and now selection process relating to appointment of teacher is conducted by open competition in terms of the Bihar School Exclusive Teachers Rules, 2023 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules 2023'). Learned counsel further submits that in view of the subsequent development, the executive instruction contained in Resolution No. 465 dated 09.07.2012 cannot be given effect and as such there is no merit in the present writ petition.

8. Having considered the rival submissions made on behalf of the parties, as well as, having perused the order passed by the District Appellate Authority and the State Appellate Authority, I find, in the background of the event which has taken place, the petitioners were selected for being appointed as Panchayat Teacher. The Employment Unit restrained from issuing appointment letter to the petitioners. The petitioners were forced to ventilate their grievance before the District Appellate Authority and the District Appellate Authority directed to proceed with the appointment process and comply the same by issuing appointment letter within two months. The order of the District Appellate Authority was not carried out and the petitioners were forced to file C.W.J.C. Nos. 8065 of 2019 and 8999 of 2019. This Court directed to comply the order

6/7

passed by the District Appellate Authority. Instead of complying with the order of this Court, respondents preferred appeal before the State Appellate Authority.

9. The State Appellate Authority after considering the entire facts of the case and the case of the petitioners having taken note of the Government Resolution contained in Memo No. 465 dated 09.07.2012 modified the order passed by the District Appellate Authority. I find it proper to reproduce the relevant part of the Government Resolution dated 09.07.2012 as under:

"fu;kstu gsrq inksa dh x.kuk ,oa forj.k ds lEcU/k esa i=kad&429] fnukad 22&06&2012 esa of.kZr funsZ"kksa ds vfrfjDr fuEu egRoiw.kZ funs"k fn;s tk jgs gSa%&

¼i½ oxZ I ls V rd d fy, Lohd`r u;s fo|ky; [kkys us gsrq inksa esa mnZw f"k{kd ds in Hkh lfEefyr gSaA ftyk }kjk vko";drk ds vuqlkj mudk forj.k fd;k tk,xkA

¼ii½ oxZ VI ls VIII rd ds fy, Lohd`r inksa esa vf/klpw uk la[;k 429 fnukad 22&06&2012 ds }kjk fuxZr ekxZfuns"k dh dafMdk 2 esa vafdr xf.kr] foKku] lkekftd foKku rFkk fgUnh] vaxzts h] laLd`r Hkk'kk ds in lfEefyr gASa ;s in ftyk }kjk vko";drk ds vuqlkj e/; fo|ky;ksa esa forfjr fd;s tk;saxAs fdUrq fdlh ,d fo'k; ;k fdlh ,d Hkk'kk ds ,d ls vf/kd in ,d gh fo|ky; esa ugha fn;s tk;saxAs lkekftd foKku ds vUrxZr f"k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk esa vafdr lHkh fo'k; gksaxAs bfrgkl ,oa Hkwxksy dh vfuok;Zrk f"kfFky ekuk tk,xkA

¼iii½ ftyk }kjk iwoZ dh fjfDr ¼fookfnr fjfDr dks NksM+dj½ fu;ekuqlkj fu;kstu gsrq tkMs +k tk,xkA"

10. Considering the interregnum period, Rules, 2006 was repealed by Rules, 2012. Rule 18 of Rules, 2012 saves past action and in this background petitioner claims that since they were selected and appointed letter was not issued due to arbitrary action of the Employment Unit for their own vested interest, the appointment of the petitioners directed by the

7/7

District Appellate Authority, as well as, the State Appellate Authority has not been questioned in any manner and this Court had directed to execute the same. In spite of clear observation made by the State Appellate Authority in its order, the respondents have not issued appointment letter in favour of the petitioners till date.

11. I have no alternative than to direct the District Education Officer and the District Programme Officer (Establishment) concerned to call for the service particulars relating to the petitioners from the Employment Unit and take appropriate action to comply with the order passed by the District Appellate Authority and as modified by the State Appellate Authority vide order dated 15.12.2020 which requires issuance of appointment letters to the petitioners.

12. The writ petition stands disposed of.

(Purnendu Singh, J)

mantreshwar/-