ANITA KUMARI Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case shows how bureaucracy refuses to give up its assumed power and authority to interfere in every aspect of the matter.

(2.) The State Government formed the cadre of Block Teachers, who are to be appointed by the Panchayat Samiti, under Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition)Rules, 2006 in respect of Kutumba Block of Aurangabad district . The Selection Committee for selecting block level teachers, issued advertisement and after scrutinising formed a panel and consequently appointed about 41 teachers in the year 2007. It appears that there were some complaints, which were enquired by the Sub-divisional Officer, who reported the matter to the Deputy Development Commissioner and ultimately the matter reached the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar .The Principal Secretary perused the entire records in respect of appointments , so made, and directed that the process of selection should be carried out afresh from the stage of preparation of merit list i.e. after notice to the party in the merit list, the counseling should be done and as per roster make appointment. Pursuant to the said direction, the Selection Committee noticed all the persons and then made fresh appointment. The Principal Secretary had ordered that those persons, who were re-figured in the appointment list, would be deemed to be continuing in service as that of the initial appointment .Petitioner re-figured in the list at serial no. 19 this time and as such continued but as a consequence of fresh counseling and fresh appointment, she was not being issued fresh appointment letter. She approached the District Teachers Appointment Tribunal, which passed an order after examining the records that the petitioner had been re-selected on basis of direction of the Principal Secretary and as such appointment letter had to be issued. It appears that the District Appellate Tribunal was in seisin of number of disputes of different Panchayats and was passing different orders. Those orders were not of the liking of some officers of the district including District Superintendent of Education. There appears to be a discord amongst the said officers impelling the Sub divisional Officer. He enquired into the appointments made in all Panchayats and orders passed by the Tribunal in this regard and then he offered this comment whether the tribunal order is correct or not. This report is then forwarded to the Collector as if the Sub-divisional Officer is the supervising authority over the tribunal. This report is Annexure 1 to the writ application and is dated 21.12.2009. In this report the appointment, as made, in Kutumba block is mentioned at serial no. 25 , where it is specifically noticed by the Sub divisional officer that the petitioner has been appointed pursuant to selection as directed by the Principal Secretary and accordingly the tribunal directed issuance of appointment letter , which is not being issued. He does not have any comment. In the conclusion of the report , he recommended the District Collector that in view of the fact, as found by him, District Superintendent of Education may be directed to cancel all those appointments and stop payment of salary to all those teachers, who have been appointed pursuant to order of the tribunal. Not only its propriety but the legality of such a recommendation is in question but the Collector without application of mind and without realising his position recommended to District Superintendent of Education to act according to the recommendation of Sub divisional Officer. Consequent thereto the District Superintendent of Education ordered for cancellation of petitioner's appointment as appointment letter was issued pursuant to order of the tribunal. These are the relevant facts .

(3.) Having heard the parties and with their consent this application is being disposed of at this stage itself.