This case, Letters Patent Appeal No. 1165 of 2018, involves an appeal filed in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, India, concerning the claims of certain individuals appointed as "Dalpatis" seeking absorption into the positions of "Panchayat Sewak," a role they equate to the present-day "Panchayat Secretary." The central issue revolves around the appellants' contention that they are entitled to be absorbed into these Panchayat positions based on prior government directives and their qualifications, vis-à-vis the State's stance on the availability of posts and the legalities of such absorption.
Background of the Appellants' Claims
The appellants, namely Arun Kumar Sharma, Mahmood Alam, Baliram Sah, and Laleshwar Prasad, were initially appointed as Dalpatis in various Gram Panchayats within the West Champaran district of Bettiah, Bihar. Their appointments, they assert, were made by the competent authority, specifically the Executive Committee of the Gram Panchayat, and received approval from the District Panchayat Officer, West Champaran.
These Dalpatis possessed the minimum qualification of being Matriculates, with some having even higher qualifications. They also underwent training at the Central Training Institute in Brambey, Ranchi. The crux of their claim lies in a communication from the Government of Bihar dated June 24, 1989. This communication allegedly directed the filling of Panchayat Sewak positions with retrenched employees, stipulating Matriculation as the minimum qualification and indicating that trained Dalpatis were eligible for appointment.
The 1989 directive also included provisions for a two-year training period for unreserved category Dalpatis (which was later waived for reserved categories) and age relaxations for Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes candidates.
Legal Proceedings and Contentions
Over time, the appointment process for Panchayat Sewaks underwent changes. A Commission was constituted on July 15, 2003, which mandated that appointments to these posts would occur only based on recommendations from the Staff Selection Commission. Alleging delays and inaction by the authorities, the Dalpatis initially approached the Patna High Court with CWJC No. 7652 of 2002, which was decided in their favor. Subsequent legal actions, including CWJC No. 15200 of 2004, an unsuccessful challenge by the State in LPA No. 1042 of 2005, and a dismissed Special Leave to Appeal (Civil) CC No. 639 of 2007, further reinforced the Dalpatis' claims.
A Contempt of Court Petition led the Panchayat Raj Department to issue Annexure-4 on March 28, 2008, directing District Magistrates to implement the Court's orders and referencing the crucial Annexure-2 of June 24, 1989. The appellants, in their legal challenge, also contested the allocation of posts, arguing that the reservation quota for Scheduled Castes and Backward Classes was being exceeded. Specifically, they claimed an excess allocation of 12 posts to Scheduled Castes and 8 posts to Backward Classes.
State's Counterarguments
The State countered the appellants' claims by relying on Annexures A, D, and C. These documents, according to the State, demonstrated that no additional posts of Panchayat Sewaks were created in West Champaran district and that there was already an excess of individuals working in those positions. The State also cited a previous case, Subhash Chandra Shukla & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors. [2009 (4) PLJR 569], asserting that only 531 posts were available in the entire State of Bihar for the absorption of Dalpatis.
Court's Analysis and Decision
The learned Single Judge, who initially heard the case, thoroughly examined the various notifications and communications issued by the State of Bihar. The court acknowledged the significance of Annexure-2 dated June 24, 1989, which outlined the State Government's policy to appoint/absorb Dalpatis as Panchayat Sewak in the undivided State of Bihar. Subsequent communications, such as the one dated July 9, 1996, directed the preparation of a seniority list of Dalpatis for Panchayat Sewak appointments.
A letter dated August 20, 1998 (Annexure-C) identified 843 posts in the undivided State of Bihar for the absorption of Dalpatis as Panchayat Sewak/Secretary. This letter also indicated that there were 12,181 Panchayats with 11,308 Panchayat Sewaks, leaving 843 posts available for absorption. Excess Panchayat Sewaks were to be transferred and adjusted in other districts with vacancies. In West Champaran, the chart in Annexure-C revealed that 8 excess Panchayat Sewaks were to be adjusted elsewhere.
A communication dated June 11, 2008 (Annexure-D) clarified that the 843 posts sanctioned by the State of Bihar's Cabinet, following High Court directives, were reduced to 531 within the State of Bihar after the separation of Bihar and Jharkhand. This reduction was further substantiated by Annexure-A dated February 24, 2009, and Annexure-B dated January 20, 2009.
The learned Single Judge also considered previous judgments relevant to the case, notably Amod Kumar Singh & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. [2005 (2) PLJR 1] and Subhash Chandra Shukla. In Amod Kumar Singh, the Dalpatis sought absorption as Panchayat Sewak in Gopalganj district, and the court's decision was influenced by CWJC No. 11008 of 1996. The State of Bihar had recommended sanctioning 843 posts of Panchayat Sewaks, but financial constraints and a ban on Class-III and Class-IV appointments hindered the process. The Bihar Gram Panchayat (Appointment, Powers and Duties of Secretary) Rules, 2003, which was applied retrospectively, further complicated the Dalpatis' prospects. The Amod Kumar Singh decision addressed the withdrawal of the ban and the retrospective application of the rules, ensuring that the retrospective operation did not deprive Dalpatis of their absorption rights.
In Subhash Chandra Shukla, the court examined the provisions of the Panchayat Raj Act alongside the 73rd amendment of the Constitution. It concluded that the duties and functions of a Panchayat Secretary (the erstwhile Panchayat Sewak) were distinct from those of a Dalpati. The Dalpatis were deemed not to hold a civil post, and therefore, could not claim absorption as Panchayat Secretaries as a matter of right. The court clarified that absorption of Dalpatis was limited to the 531 posts within the State of Bihar, following the separation of Jharkhand.
The role of a Gram Raksha Dal was likened to a rudimentary police force, with the Dalpati in charge, primarily performing general watch and ward duties. In contrast, a Panchayat Secretary holds significantly broader responsibilities within the Panchayat system. The court in Subhash Chandra Shukla determined that there was no basis for appointing Panchayat Secretaries from among the Dalpatis. While the court did not object to the appointment of 531 Panchayat Secretaries from the Dalpatis, it explicitly stated that this decision did not have judicial endorsement.
Based on the counter-affidavit and presented documents, the learned Single Judge concluded that no mandamus could be issued in the writ petition, as there were no available posts in the West Champaran district to accommodate the additional Dalpatis. The court directed the Collector to re-verify and examine if the petitioners could be accommodated.
Letters Patent Appeal and the Final Verdict
The appellants then filed the Letters Patent Appeal. The Division Bench, after reviewing the communications and decisions, upheld the learned Single Judge's judgment. The Advocate General reiterated that the post of Dalpati is a district cadre post, and their absorption cannot occur outside those districts, referencing Annexure-S and S/1. These annexures detailed the sanctioned posts of Dalpatis in various districts, the posts available after the reorganization of Bihar and Jharkhand, and the positions of Panchayat Secretaries.
The Division Bench emphasized the significance of the Subhash Chandra Shukla ruling, which clearly stated that a Dalpati, by virtue of their position, cannot be considered for promotion or appointment as a Panchayat Secretary unless explicitly provided by the Legislature. While the government had created 531 posts for absorbing Dalpatis as Panchayat Secretaries, this did not establish an inherent right for Dalpatis to claim these positions. Annexure S/1 confirmed that West Champaran had no vacant posts for absorbing Dalpatis as Panchayat Sewaks, and Annexure-S further corroborated the absence of post creation in the district.
In light of these facts and legal interpretations, the Division Bench found no reason to interfere with the learned Single Judge's decision and dismissed the appeal.
Read the full judgement Below;
https://patnahighcourt.gov.in/viewjudgment/MyMxMTY1IzIwMTgjMSNO-JobZl9qStGw=
0 Comments