SHAMIUN NISHA, D/O MD. KHAIAR AHMAD, R/O VILLAGE + P.O. Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, GOVT. OF BIHAR, PATNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Sri Tej Bahadur Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing in support of the appeal and Sri Yogendra Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 10, the contesting respondent. The appellant is the unsuccessful writ petitioner.

(2.) Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having examined the records and with the consent of the parties, we are disposing of this appeal at this stage itself.

(3.) In the 2nd phase of appointments of Panchayat Teachers the writ petitioner-appellant and private respondent No. 10 both applied for the same post of Urdu Teacher under the category of Extremely Backward Class. It is not in dispute that in the merit list so prepared respondent No. 10 had 66.72% merit points and writ petitioner-appellant had only 63.41% merit points. Thereafter it is not in dispute that counselling was held in which both the writ petitioner-appellant and respondent No. 10 were present. In counselling the only thing that is done is that documents are verified and willingness to join is taken. Again, it is not in dispute that respondent No. 10 being more meritorious gave the undertaking and produced the documents for verification. However, letters of appointments were not issued by the Panchayat Samiti then and there, which normally ought to have been done. After almost 10 months appointment letters had been issued. The appointment letter was issued in favour of writ petitioner appellant and respondent No. 10 was told that she was put on the waiting list. When she came to know that the less meritorious petitioner has been appointed she filed an application before the District Teachers Appointment Appellate Authority challenging appointment of the writ petitioner. Notices were issued to the writ petitioner in those proceedings by registered post. Notices were also issued to the Panchayat Secretary and other officials of the Panchayat. Notice to the petitioner was sent at the address of the school in which she was working consequent to her appointment. Petitioner did not appear. The Authority having examined the records in detail came to a finding from the records that respondent No. 10 the applicant before it was more meritorious as per the merit list. She was admittedly present at the time of counselling. There was no explanation as to why appointment letter was not issued to respondent No. 10, but was issued much late to the writ petitioner. Considering the aforesaid facts and noticing the absence of writ petitioner in the proceedings in spite of notice, the application was allowed and appointment of the writ petitioner-appellant was set aside. This is what brought the writ petitioner to this Court. Learned Single Judge refused to interfere in the matter.