1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present writ application is being filed for issuance of a writ, order, direction for the following reliefs:-
(i) For issuance of writ in quashing the order dated 18.06.2018 passed by the State Appellate Authority in Appeal No.352 of 2018 contained in Annexure-12.
(ii) For issuance of writ for setting side/quashing of the part of the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, District Appellate Authority to the East Champaran, Motihari in Appeal No.880 of 2012 whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to affirm the office order dated 28.12.2010 by which the appointment of the petitioner as Panchayat Teacher has been cancelled by the Panchayat Teacher’s Appointment Committee, Gram Panchayat Raj, Sirauna (Chiraya).
(iii) For issuance of writ for setting aside/quashing of the office order dated 28.12.2010 issued vide memo no.08 by the Panchayat Secretary (Respondent No.10) whereby and whereunder he has intimated the petitioner that her appointment on the post of Panchayat teacher Newly Constituted Primary School, Sirauna Harija Toli has been cancelled.
(iv) For any other relief/reliefs to which the petitioner deemed entitled into the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The short fact of the case is that petitioner was appointed as Panchayat Teacher on 14.08.2018 vide letter no.5 (Annexure-1 to the writ application) and after appointment as a Panchayat Primary Teacher as newly constituted Primary School, Sirauna, Harizan Toli, the petitioner joined in the school on 16.08.2010 (Annexure-2 of the writ application).
4. On 31.08.2010, the Human Resource Development Department issued a letter to all the District Magistrate/District Education Officer for cancellation/termination of services of those Panchayat Teacher’s who were appointed after 14.08.2010 (Annexure-3 of the writ application).
5. The principal of the aforesaid school gave details of attendance certificate on 01.12.2012, stating therein that the petitioner and other teachers have worked at the School since 16.08.2010 to 30.11.2010 (Annexure-4 of the writ application).
6. The petitioner filed a case on 05.12.2012, bearing no.880 of 2012 before the District Teacher Appointment Appellate Tribunal, East Champaran at Motihari for payment of salary since 16.08.2010 and also stated that no termination letter is given to her by the authorities (Annexure-5 of the writ application) and in the aforesaid case, the respondent no.13 appeared and filed a written argument on 30.11.2010 before the Appellate Tribunal. During the course of hearing of the aforesaid case before the Tribunal, petitioner got knowledge that her appointment was terminated by the Panchayat Secretary on 28.12.2010 (Annexure-7 of the writ application).
7. From bare perusal of the termination letter, it is apparent that the termination was made on the basis of Letter No.1190, dated 21.09.2010 (Annexure-8 of the writ application).
8. In the aforesaid case, on 15.02.2016, the petitioner also filed written argument before the Tribunal (Annexure-9 of the writ application). Other respondents including the Principal of the School have also filed their written statements.
9. On 29.02.2016, the District Appellate Tribunal decided the case on the basis of statements made by the Principal of the school and partly allowed the case of the petitioner and confirmed the termination order (Annexure-10 of the writ application).
10. The State Government fixed a date for termination of services of those Panchayat Teacher’s who were appointed after 14.08.2010. Neither the Appellate Tribunal nor the Teacher’s Appointment Committee passed the order in accordance with the letter of the State Government.
11. Petitioner filed C.W.J.C. No.7594 of 2016 against the order dated 29.02.2016 passed by the Presiding Officer, District Appellate Authority, East Champaran (Motihari) in Appeal No.880 of 2012 (Annexure-10 of the writ application). The said writ application was disposed of on 09.04.2018 with a liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal before the State Appellate Authority.
12. Accordingly, appeal was filed by the appellant in Appeal No.352 of 2019, which was dismissed by the State Appellate Authority vide order dated 18.06.2018.
13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the date of appointment of the petitioner was 14.08.2010 and the date of joining is 16.08.2010. The letter of State Government dated 31.08.2010 states that any employment letter after cut off date i.e. 14.08.2010 is illegal and direction has been issued to cancel the same. The letter of removal dated 28.12.2010 refer the letter of the State Government dated 21.09.2010 which also states that any appointment after the cut off date is illegal.
14. In the case of the petitioner, she was appointed on 14.08.2010 and gave her joining on 16.08.2010. There is no illegality either in the appointment or there is any violation of the State Government letter dated either 31.08.2010 or 21.09.2010.
15. The order of District Appellate Authority is out and out illegal and complete on presumption that the appointment of the petitioner is back dated without having any material. If the appointment is no more in dispute that the date of joining is not material because the appointment letter nowhere stated that within how much period the petitioner has to give her joining. The Appellate Tribunal also failed to consider that the appointment has nothing to do with the joining, if appointment is illegal, the joining is immaterial. The State Tribunal virtually accepted the finding of the District Appellate Tribunal which is without any basis.
16. A counter-affidavit is filed on behalf of the respondent no.4, District Education Officer, East Champaran in which he has supported the order passed by the District Appellate Authority and State Appellate Authority.
17. Learned counsel for the private respondent no.14 has also filed a counter affidavit in the present case, in which he has stated that the petitioner has not come before this Court with clean hands as material facts have been suppressed by the petitioner and therefore, the present writ application is ought to be dismissed on this ground itself.
18. He further submits that the deponent/ R.N-14 passed her Intermediate Examination in the year 2007 with second division where she scored 507 marks out of total 900 marks, which comes to 56.33 per cent. The deponent also completed her diploma in elementary education in the year 2017-1 from National Institute of Open Schooling (Annexure-R-14/1 of the counter affidavit).
19. In the year 2008, the process for appointment of Panchayat Teacher under the Sirauna Panchayat was initiated by the Government and the deponent herself to be eligible candiate for the said post, made an application for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher along with all the requisite documents under Extremely Backward Category and accordingly, the receipt no.16 was issued on 10.11.2008.
20. That after receipts of application form from the candidates, the Panchayat Niyojan Samiti published provisional merit list of eligible candidates wherein the name of the Respondent no.14 was finding place at Sl. No.58. The provisional list was produced by the Block Education Officer, Chiraiyan during the course of hearing of Case No.687 of 2010 (Annexure-R-14/3 of the counter affidavit).
21. He further submits that the date for counselling was fixed on 28.02.2009 and on which the deponent appeared along with all her educational certificate before Panchayat Niyojan Samiti and thereafter, the final merit list was prepared for total 21 candidates under Sirauna Panchayat in which the name of the deponent was at Sl. No.12.
22. All the candidates who appeared in the counselling under Chiraiyan Block, the list of all the eligible candidates was prepared panchayat wise for verification of their educational certificates from concerned Board, in which name of all 21 candidates under Sirauna Panchayat was mentioned and the name of the deponent was at Sl. No.73.
23. He further submits that cognizance was taken by the Block Education Officer upon the application of deponent and the School Co-ordinator Neeraj Kumar Sharma was asked to make inspection all the school under Sirauna Panchayat, who visited the school on 28.08.2010 and submitted detailed report stating therein that no new teacher has been appointed in the schools mentioned in the table and headmistress of one of the school disclosed that the husband of mukhiya is making pressure for appointing new teacher illegally.
24. In the meanwhile, the Human Resource Department issued a letter as contained in Letter No.7 dated 31.08.2010 that any appointment made after the date fixed will be considered as illegal and strict action will be taken against them. The department issued another letter vide letter no.1190 dated 21.09.2010 wherein it was stated that with the connivance of Block Education Officer and Panchayat Secretary, the appointment letters are being issued by antedating which is a criminal offence and action is required to be taken against them.
25. As the deponent was waiting for her appointment, she made a complaint before the District Employment Appellate Tribunal, East Champaran (Motihari) on 06.09.2010, which was registered as Case No.687 of 2010.
26. He further submits that the Block Education Officer taking note of report of Co-ordinator Neeraj Kumar as well as letters issued by the Human Resource Department with regard to the manner in which the appointment letters are being issued by antedating. Headmasters of all the schools under Sirauna Panchayat were asked to submit their response vide letter no.400 dated 30.09.2010 on the issue of appointment in compliance of the letter issued by the Human Resource Department.
27. Lastly, he submits that the deponent gave her joining on 07.01.2011 before the Headmistress, Navsrijit Prathmik Vidalaya, Sirauna, Harijan Toli and since then she is discharging her duty with all sincerity and dedication till date.
28. The State Appellate Authority has held that the District Appellate Authority found that the entire records concerning the appointment process through which the appellant claims to have been appointed, were missing. The appellant was given an opportunity to appear at the counselling on the date fixed, but she did not appear for the counselling for the reasons best known to her. It further appears that the Employment Unit has also taken resolution to cancel the appointment which is not under challenge. The District Authority took notice of the stand taken by the respondent headmistress of the concerned has stated that the appellant had appeared on 30.08.2010 for joining and exercised undue pressure, under which she accepted the joining.
29. The State Appellate Authority held that in view of the facts reflecting from the impugned order, it is satisfied that the District Authority did not commit any legal flaw in the consideration of the matter and granting no relief, except payment of wages/salary for the period she had actually worked to the appellant. Petitioner has also failed to produce the receipt by which she applied the application for the post of teacher.
30. Considering the rival submissions and from the perusal of materials on record, no infirmity has been found in the order passed by the District Appellate Authority as well as by the State Appellate Authority.
31. Accordingly, this writ application is dismissed.
