Rakesh Kumar v. The State Of Bihar And ORS

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

Letters Patent Appeal No.1602 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10756 of 2010 =========================================================== Rakesh Kumar son of Suresh Prasad, at present Panchayat Teacher, newly created Primary School Barai Tola, Block Barauli, DistrictGopalganj. .... .... Appellant

Versus

1. The State of Bihar.

2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.

3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate, Gopalganj.

5. The Sub Divisional Officer, Gopalganj.

6. The District Superintendent of Education, Gopalganj.

7. The Block Development Officer, Barauli, District - Gopalganj.

8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Barauli, District - Gopalaganj.

9. The District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority, Gopalganj.

10. The Gram Panchayat Raj Salempur (West), through its Secretary, i.e. Panchayat Secretary.

11. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Salempur (west), Block Darauli, Dist. Gopalganj.

12. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Salempur (west), Block Darauli, District - Gopalganj.

13. Arbind Kumar Pandey, son of Sri Dewendra Pandey, resident of village - Sarafara, P.O. Batardih, P.S. - Barauli, District - Gopalganj. .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :

For the Appellant : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Mayank Rukhaiyar, AC to GA - 1

Patna High Court LPA No.1602 of 2014 dt.01-09-2015 2.

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH And HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVANITI PRASAD SINGH) Date: 01-09-2015 Heard learned counsel for the appellant at length and learned counsel for the State.

Delay in filing this appeal is condoned.

It is not in dispute that the writ petitioner was the first candidate on the merit list. It is not in dispute that he was called for counselling for appointment to the post of Primary Teacher, but he was not appointed instead of respondent no. 13 to the writ petition, who is the appellant before us was appointed.

complaint was made to the Block Development Officer who was the statutory authority in this regard. He also reported that respondent no. 13, the appellant in this appeal, was wrongly appointed. The writ petitioner moved this Court. This Court directed him to now go before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and hence the writ petition.

In the writ proceedings, notices were issued to respondent nos. 11, 12 and 13 who are the Mukhiya,

Patna High Court LPA No.1602 of 2014 dt.01-09-2015 3.

Panchayat Secretary and the writ petitioner, all appeared. When the matter was taken up for hearing, the private respondent chose not to be present. The Writ Court allowed the writ petition setting aside the appointment of respondent no. 13, on the ground that though the writ petitioner was undisputedly more meritorious on the plea that he had not given his consent at the time of counselling he was not appointed. Instead the appellant who was respondent no. 13 in the writ proceeding was appointed. The Writ Court found this to be a suspicious plea to wrongly and illegally deprive the writ petitioner of his appointment. Considering the merit and considering that the writ petitioner was present at the time of counselling, we see no reason to take a different view as taken by learned Single Judge. This appeal is devoid of merit, and is dismissed, accordingly.

(Navaniti Prasad Singh, J.) (Nilu Agrawal, J.) Rajeev/N.A.F.R.

U