MD FAIZ AKHTAR Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard counsels for the appellant, the State and the respondents. The present appeal arises from order dated 15.4.2013 allowing CWJC No. 4367 of 2010 filed by respondent No. 9.

(2.) Learned Single Judge held that the appellant had not filed any complaint within time under Rule 18 of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called 'the Rules') raising any grievance with regard to appointment of respondent No. 9 and denial of appointment to him. The fact that he may have filed his representation/grievances before any authority other than the authority designated under the rules, was irrelevant. The complaint before the Tribunal, constituted in lieu of the Block Development Officer under Rule 18 was made three years after the appointment. The authorities had contended that the appellant had not participated in the selection process. The Tribunal acted inappropriately by directing appointment when it could at best had given directions to consider for appointment.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that he had filed his objections before the District Magistrate and the District Superintendent of Education within time which tantamounts to an objection raised in accordance with law. It cannot be said that he was negligent in seeking remedy for his grievances. Reliance was placed on a Division Bench order in LPA No. 1526 of 2009 (Amarjeet Kumar Singh v. The State of Bihar & Others) to submit that in similar circumstances where the original grievance was raised before the authority other than the Block Development Officer, yet the subsequent grievance raised before the Tribunal was approved. The appellant had 70.33% marks while respondent No. 9 only had 69.58% marks. The order of the Tribunal recites that the appellant had produced receipt in confirmation of having submitted an application. His contention was that his application was deliberately misplaced by the selection committee. Thus, there is no infirmity in the order of the Tribunal calling for interference. There had been no intentional delay in moving the Tribunal as the appellant collected all necessary information with regard to issue under Right to Information Act and then moved the Tribunal.