KUMARI GAYATRI DEVI @ GAYATRI DEVI & ORS. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR & ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD the parties in both the appeals. On behalf of appellants the order under appeal dated 23.4.2012 has been challenged mainly on the ground that the learned Writ Court did not consider the individual defence of the appellants as to whether their appointment could be saved on account of marks obtained by them in their respective categories. A plea was also raised that the learned Single Judge has not appreciated that no document was available to show proper notice to the appellants for appearing before the Tribunal. Lastly it was submitted that Rule 18 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules') was amended in 2008 with effect from 25.8.2008 and hence the Tribunal under the amended Rule 18 will have no jurisdiction in relation to a dispute arising out of appointment made earlier. Related to this issue there was a further submission that before the amendment in Rule 18, Block Development Officers were competent authority to decide such disputes/appeals and hence a dispute earlier decided by the Block Development Officer could not have been reconsidered and reopened by the Tribunal constituted under the amended Rule 18.

(2.) SO far as marks and claims of individual appellants are concerned we find that the Tribunal has come to a considered opinion and finding on the basis of materials and documents produced before it that the appointments were vitiated on account of large scale irregularities and illegalities such as tearing away of original applications, preparation of fraudulent applications, preparation of fraudulent counseling register, merit list and select list by leaving out persons with higher marks who claim to have applied for the post and effecting appointment of persons with lesser marks. The Rules of reservation were also not followed and against the posts of teachers for general category appointments were made of persons who had qualifications of, Urdu/Maulvi. From the order sheet of the Writ Court it has been shown that the Court on 5.4.2012 noticed the findings of the Tribunal and felt the necessity of looking into the relevant records relating to the selection and appointment. For this purpose the records were ordered to be produced and the Panchayat Secretary appeared with the original records as recorded in the order dated 19.4.2012. The order under appeal dated 23.4.2012 in its opening paragraph records that the parties were heard and original documents of selection and appointment were perused and then the final conclusion of the Tribunal was extracted alongwith a finding that the Writ Court was in complete agreement with the views recorded by the Tribunal that the appointments were vitiated by fraud, interpolation and a number of fatal infirmities.

(3.) SO far as issue of notice and appearance before the Tribunal is concerned, the order of the Tribunal in paragraph -2 categorically records that keeping in view the allegations both the parties were directed to appear with evidence and on different dates persons from both sides appeared and they included the teachers appointed/working, the category to which the appellants belong. The statement and evidence on behalf of all the persons were taken on record. Even if one or few working teachers did not appear before the Tribunal, in the facts of the case where entire selection process has been found to be vitiated, defect in notice to an individual could not be material. The Tribunal's findings are based upon the original records and materials available before it and the Writ Court has expressed full agreement with the findings of the Tribunal after going through the original records. In such circumstances we are not persuaded to go further into same issues of facts.