MURLIDHAR MISHRA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.

(2.) The petitioner is aggrieved by cancellation of his selection as Nyaya Mitra as per order dtd. 30/11/2007. Submission is that the Sub Divisional Officer, Banmankhi has cancelled the selection on basis of a complaint which was time barred in view of the specific limitation prescribed in Clause 12 of the Bihar Gram Katchahry Nyaya Mitra (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007 (for brevity, 2007 Rules). Since the selection is of 30/11/2007, the complaint dtd. 4/4/2008 could not have been acted upon. The petitioner, therefore, has sought quashing of the order dtd. 22/9/2017 passed by the Collector in Miscellaneous Appeal Case No 77 of 2008 filed by the petitioner as also the order of the Sub Divisional Officer, Banmankhi dtd. 21/5/2008 passed on the complaint dtd. 4/4/2008 in Miscellaneous Case No 6 of 2007 - 2008 cancelling the petitioner's selection as Nyaya Mitra of Gram Katchahry, Ramnagar.

(3.) The learned State Counsel submits that the petitioner's selection was by issuing a notice only to the petitioner. From the averments made in the writ petition and the documents on record, it is obvious that no panel was prepared, as required under the selection procedure prescribed in the 2007 Rules. The procedure for employment contained in Rule 6 of the 2007 Rules mandates preparation of a panel. The same has not been done. Therefore, having violated the provisions of the Rules of 2007, the petitioner cannot be heard to claim a right arising out of the same Rules of 2007 based on the limitation for filing a complaint, since the selection itself is clandestine as per the records. It is quite obvious that complaint could have been lodged only once the petitioner's illegal selection came to the knowledge of the complainant.