MUKESH KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal arises from the order dated 13.3.2013 dismissing CWJC No. 792 of 2010. The learned Single Judge declined to interfere with the order of the District Teachers Appointment Tribunal, Saharsa dated 31.8.2009 terminating the appointment of the appellants on a challenge held out by Respondents 8 and 9.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that the order of the Tribunal is ex parte without notice to them. They have been deprived of the appointment without giving them an opportunity of defence making the order void an initio. If the candidates above the appellants did not appear for counselling despite notice there was no illegality in the appointment of the appellants. Similarly because appellant no. 2 may have been a relative of the Panchayat Secretary was not sufficient to invalidate his appointment if he was otherwise eligible. The selection was not made singularly by Panchayat Sachiv but by a Selection Committee. Notices had been sent to the candidates including the private respondents by speed post notwithstanding which they did not appear. It was next submitted that earlier the matter had been examined by the BDO who was statutory authority under Rule 18 of the Bihar Primary Panchayat Teachers (Appointment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. The BDO found the appointment of the appellants to be valid. This order was never challenged and attained finality. The creation of the Tribunal in August 2008 in lieu of BDO therefore did not warrant fresh examination of the appointment applying the principles of res-judicata.

(3.) Counsel for the State invited our attention to the order of the Tribunal and submitted that rampant illegalities had been committed during the appointment. The Panchayat Sachiv appointed his own relatives not once but twice. The Tribunal had adequately discussed that the so called proof in support of despatch of notice by postal certificate to the candidates was not counter signed by the Postal Department and rightly disbelieved by the Tribunal. It was lastly submitted that appellants were noticed by the Tribunal through the Principal of the School where they were teaching. In support of the same the private respondents in their counter affidavit had enclosed the notice signed in acknowledgement by the two appellants at Annexures R4 and R4/1. No rejoinder to the same had been filed by the appellants before the Writ Court.