JAIDEO MAHTO Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent of the High Court of Judicature at Patna has been preferred by the Petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 13476 of 2008 Jaideo Mahto v. The State of Bihar and Ors.), and raises a grievance with respect to the judgment dated 9.9.2010, passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court, whereby the writ petition has been disposed of, and the impugned orders passed by Mr. P.N. Narayanan, the learned State Information Commissioner, Patna, in Case No. 3063 of 2007-08 Shashi Bhushan Kumar v. District Superintendent of Education-cum- Public Information Officer, Nawada, imposing fine on the Appellant, has been upheld.

(2.) A brief statement of facts essential for the disposal of this appeal may be indicated. Selection process for appointment of block teachers for different blocks in the district of Nawada were conducted by a committee comprising of the Pramukh of the Panchayat as Chairman, the Block Education Extension Officer, Block Development Officer-cum- Ex-officio Secretary of the Panchayat, and member of the concerned Panchayat Samiti. A total number of 55 block teachers were to be appointed in the district of Nawada, and certain posts were reserved for visually impaired persons. We are concerned with the Shekhopur Sarai Block, and one post for a visually impaired person was reserved in this block. The Appellant herein (writ Petitioner), at the relevant point of time, was posted as the Block Education Extension Officer, Shekhopur Sarai Block. Shashi Bhushan Kumar (Respondent No. 7 herein), Narain Prasad Singh, and Arvind Kumar were the three applicants who claimed consideration in the reserved category of visually impaired person. Shashi Bhushan Kumar (Respondent No. 7 herein) is the information-seeker and the applicant before the State Information Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission). After completion of the selection process, Narayan Prasad Singh was selected in this reserved category and was issued appointment letter dated 7.2.2007.

(3.) While assailing the validity of the impugned proceedings of the Commission, learned Counsel for the Appellant submits that the Commission has failed to keep in mind the limits of its jurisdiction under the Act, and has passed orders which are beyond the scope of the Act.