Patna High Court Rejects Panchayat Teacher Appointment Claim Due to Lack of Proof and Record Tampering

 


Simplified Explanation of the Judgment:

This case arose when an appellant claimed he was selected for the post of Panchayat Teacher in 2008 in Gram Panchayat Bhakura, Tarari Block, Bhojpur district. According to him, he was issued an appointment letter dated 13.08.2010 but was not allowed to join the school as other teachers had already been appointed based on the directions of local authorities.

The appellant first approached the District Appellate Authority and then the State Appellate Authority, but his claims were rejected both times. He then filed a writ petition before the Patna High Court (CWJC 8542/2022), which was also dismissed. Now, he filed this Letters Patent Appeal (LPA 388/2022), again challenging the previous orders.

During the hearing, it was noted that:

  • The original appointment records were reportedly lost in 2011, and a police report was filed.

  • The Panchayat Secretary denied the appellant ever participated in the selection process.

  • The appointment letter produced by the appellant had suspicious similarities with others (same letter number), raising doubts about its authenticity.

  • Respondents 10 to 13 had already joined their posts based on distinct appointment orders.

The High Court concluded that since the matter involved serious factual disputes and allegations of forgery, it was not appropriate for writ jurisdiction under Article 226. Hence, the appeal was dismissed.

Significance of the Judgment:

This judgment upholds the principle that factual disputes and forgery allegations should be resolved through appropriate forums, not through writ petitions. It emphasizes the need for documentary integrity in recruitment processes, especially in government and public sector jobs.

Legal Issues and Decision:

  • Whether the appellant had a valid appointment letter?
    ➤ Not established due to doubts over document authenticity.

  • Whether the writ court can decide disputed facts?
    ➤ No; such issues should be decided by trial or competent forum.

  • Was the appellant entitled to relief under writ jurisdiction?
    ➤ No; petition dismissed for lack of admissible evidence.

Case Title: Krishna Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Others

Case Number: LPA No. 388 of 2022

Citation(s): 2024(4) PLJR 560

Coram and Names of Judges:

  • Hon’ble the Chief Justice K. Vinod Chandran

  • Hon’ble Mr. Justice Partha Sarthy

Names of Advocates:

  • For Appellant: Mr. Ashwani Kumar Tiwary

  • For Respondents: Smt. Shilpa Singh (GA-12), Mr. Ram Vinay Pd. Singh (AC to GA-12), Mr. Apurva Kumar

Link to Judgment:

0 Comments

WhatsApp Call