KUMARI KANCHANBALA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Intra-Court appeal has been preferred for setting aside the order dated 19.03.2012 passed by the learned Writ Court in Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14755 of 2011 by which the learned Writ Court has been pleased to dismiss the writ application preferred by the present appellant and refused to interfere with the order, as contained in Annexure-10 to the writ application, passed by the learned District Teachers' Employment Appellate Tribunal, Patna (hereinafter referred to as the 'Tribunal'). The writ application was preferred challenging the order of the Tribunal refusing to interfere with the order passed by the District Superintendent of Education holding that the petitioner was illegally appointed against the vacancy which was created due to removal of one Anil Kumar. The District Superintendent of Education held that there was no vacancy against other backward caste category, the said finding of the District Superintendent of Education has been upheld by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has discussed the case of the petitioner in paragraph 6 of the impugned order dated 18.02.2011 (Annexure-10). There is a categorical finding of the District Superintendent of Education as well as the Tribunal to the effect that as per the reservation roster/chart there was no vacancy in the backward category. It has also been taken note of the fact that weightage marks of 17 which is the minimum marks prescribed for unreserved category has been given to the petitioner.

(2.) The learned Writ Court has gone by the findings recorded by the Tribunal and on the face of those findings refused to interfere with the impugned order in the writ application.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned order passed by the learned Writ Court submitting that the learned Writ Court could not appreciate that the petitioner's appointment was made due to removal of Anil Kumar an appointee in backward class category and for that reason the learned counsel has relied upon the enquiry report of the Block Development Officer. Learned counsel submits that while examining the earlier complaints enquiries were made by the competent authority and the appointment of the petitioner-appellant was found valid and genuine. It is his further submission that the order of the District Superintendent of Education dated 28.10.2009 has been quashed by the Hon'ble High Court in CWJC No.6550 of 2010, a copy of the order dated 06.05.2013 passed in CWJC No.6550 of 2010 has been enclosed as Annexure-5 to the review application.