SUJATA DEVI @ SUJATA KUMARI Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this writ application the petitioner has assailed the order dated 6.2.2007 passed by the Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat Raj Daraili Mathiya, in Darauli Anchal in the District of Siwan seeking to terminate the services of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner has also prayed for consequential relief to reinstate in service.

(2.) THE facts which would be necessary to be noticed in this regard are that the petitioner, a graduate, pursuant to the policy of the State Government as with regard to engagement of Panchayat Shiksha Mitra had offered her candidature for being engaged as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra in G.P.R. Daraili Mathiya and her selection and appointment was also made in the prescribed manner as was communicated by the Mukhiya of the Gram Panchayat vide his letter dated 15.6.2005. The further case of the petitioner is that she was continued on the basis of her said engagement/appointment without any hindrance but all of a sudden her services were terminated on the ground that she did not possess 45% marks in her Intermediate Examination on the date of her engagement/ appointment i.e. 15.6.2005. The petitioner has alleged that all this has happened only because the Mukhiya wanted a vacancy on the post of Panchayat Shikshak to be created as the Government by taking a policy decision had introduced Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Awam Sewa Sarta) Niyamawali, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Rules ') dated 1.7.2006 which under Rule 20(ii) had envisaged that the Panchayat Shiksha Mitra already engaged a working as on 1.7.2006 will be deemed to be employed as a Panchayat Shikshak under the Rules. In this context the petitioner has specifically asserted that as on 1.7.2006 she was continuing as a Panchayat Shikshak Mitra and therefore, by virtue of the aforementioned Rule 20(iii) of the Rules she became a Panchayat Shikshak and thus could not have been removed by the Mukhiya in an arbitrary manner. Mr. Chittranjan Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has made a number of submissions but then this Court would notice only one of such contentions which goes to the root of the matter. Mr. Sinha has stated that the petitioner was not given any show cause notice/opportunity of hearing as has been asserted by her in paragraph 40 of the writ application.

(3.) IT has to be noted that though a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 11, the Mukhiya, who had terminated the services of the petitioner by the impugned order, there is no specific denial to the aforesaid statement of the petitioner in paragraph 40 of the writ application. As a matter of fact paragraph 40 of the writ application has been dealt in paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit which has answered paragraphs 33 to 41 collectively. In this context it would be thus necessary to refer to the pleadings in paragraph 40 of the writ application which reads as follows : - "That it is stated and humbly submitted that the principle of natural justice i.e. show cause or opportunity of hearing has not been provided in terminating the service of the petitioner, which is basic requirement for terminating a Govt. employees (Panchayat Teacher)."