Shailendra Kumar Sah v. The State Of Bihar And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1535 of 2014 IN Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 4215 of 2013 =========================================================== Shailendra Kumar Sah Son of Sri Prem Chandra Sah, resident of Village - Madhubani, P.S. - Phenhara, District - East Champaran presently working as Panchayat Teacher, Govt. Primary School, Madhubani, Distt. - East Champaran .... .... Appellant
Versus
1. The State of Bihar
2. The District Education Officer, East Champaran at Motihari
3. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Motihari, Distt. - East Champaran
4. The Appellate Authority through its Chairman, Motihari
5. The Block Education Extension Officer, Phenhara, P.S. - Phenhara, District - East Champaran
6. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Madhubani, P.S. - Phenhara, District - East Champaran
7. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Madhubani, P.S. - Phenhara, District - East Champaran
8. The Headmaster, Government Primary School, Madhubani, P.O. + P.S. - Phenahra, District East Champaran .... .... Respondents =========================================================== Appearance :
For the Appellant :
Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Singh, Advocate For the Respondent State: Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav, GP-23 Mr. Sanjay Kumar, AC to GP-23 =========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI and HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. NILU AGRAWAL ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR TRIPATHI) Date: 09-05-2017 Heard counsel for the appellant and counsel for the State.
Dismissal of the writ application of the appellant by the learned single Judge vide order dated 07.05.2014 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 4215 of 2013 is not required to be interfered with. The findings are that the present appellant was a direct beneficiary of indiscretion
Patna High Court LPA No.1535 of 2014 dt.09-05-2017 2/2 of his father, who happened to be the Mukhiya of the Panchayat in question. Such kind of leeway as well as discretion cannot be conferred upon the holder of a public office, especially when such appointment is also being made in the public domain. He has a direct bias in the selection of the present appellant and denial of such an opportunity to an otherwise able candidate, who was deliberately ousted by showing that she did not provide the caste certificate, therefore, she was pushed in the general category. These are manipulations done by the appointing authority, which cannot be given seal of approval by interfering with the impugned order of the learned single Judge.
It was a fit case where a criminal case should be instituted against the father of the appellant for misuse of his official position.
The appeal is dismissed.
(Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J) (Nilu Agrawal, J) Pawan/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N/A Uploading Date 11.05.2017 Transmission Date N/A