ABUL HUSSAIN Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has challenged the order dated 9.8.2011 passed by the District Teachers' Employment Appellate Tribunal, Kishanganj in Case No. 4/2011 whereby Respondent No. 10 has been directed to be appointed as Panchayat Teacher setting aside the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner has asserted in the writ application that 63.11 marks in intermediate examination was awarded to his credit and that he had applied for his appointment as Panchayat Teacher being a member of Extremely Backward Class category. It is his case that the Respondents had fixed a date of counselling from 13.1.2007 to 19.1.2007 which was to be held at Dighal Bank Block Office. He learnt from other candidates that counselling was going on at Dighal Bank Block instead of Panchayat Head Office and, therefore, he went to the Block Office on 19.1.2007 and appeared in the counselling but the Respondent did not appoint him and appointed Respondent No. 10, who had marks less than that of the petitioner. It has further been stated in paragraph No. 8 that in the light of the said counselling, the Panchayat Secretary issued a letter on 8.2.2007 addressed to the petitioner communicating his selection to the post of Panchayat Teacher asking him to be present in Panchayat Office on 7.3.2007. The petitioner has further stated in the writ application that on 7.3.2007, he alongwith other selected candidates went for counselling but unfortunately, the Mukhiya and Secretary of the Gram Panchayat were not present there for counselling. In such circumstance, the petitioner and Other candidates approached the Block Development Officer, Dighal Bank Block making a complaint that they had gone for counselling in Panchayat Office but since no one was present to conduct, counselling could not be done.

(2.) It is further alleged that by an act of manipulation, Respondent No. 10, who had less marks than the petitioner to his credit, was appointed subsequently. It is his further case that the Block Development Officer by his letters/orders dated 5.1.2008 and 10.5.2008 had asked the Panchayat Secretary to complete the process of counselling. Accordingly, on the basis of counselling, the petitioner was issued appointment letter on 10.5.2008 on the strength of which he submitted his joining as Panchayat Teacher. Thereafter, he was posted in a Primary School where he joined on 17.5.2008. Respondent No. 10 filed an appeal for cancelling of petitioner's appointment by filing the said case i.e. Case No. 4/2011 before the District Teachers' Appointment Appellate Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal by impugned order has set aside the petitioner's appointment with a direction to the Respondents to appoint Respondent No. 10 in place of the petitioner.

(3.) There is no dispute over the fact that the order of the Tribunal has been passed on the ground that the petitioner had in fact not participated in the first counselling on the dates fixed for the category to which he belonged. He is said to have participated in the counselling on 19.1.2007, which date was fixed exclusively for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates to which the petitioner does not belong. This fact is not in dispute. The Tribunal referring to the records has mentioned that as per the decision of the committee constituted for preparation of panel, candidature of such candidates who did not appear for counselling on the date fixed for them was not required to be considered. This is an admitted fact that the petitioner did not appear for counselling on the date fixed for counselling of candidates belonging to the category to which the petitioner belongs. I do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order. This application is accordingly dismissed.