Statutory recruitment powers cannot be usurped by unauthorised district officials.

The petitioners were appointed as Panchayat Teachers in Gram Panchayat Raj Telhar in November 2006 after a selection process that included counselling and publication of a merit panel.

The private respondents alleged irregularities in that process. After the District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Education directed preparation of a fresh merit list, the petitioners challenged those directions; the matter was later remitted by the High Court to the District Appellate Authority, which ruled in the petitioners’ favour in 2012.

In 2018, the private respondents appealed to the State Appellate Authority, which on 1 November 2021 set aside the petitioners’ appointments and upheld the private respondents’ appointments.

The Panchayat Secretary subsequently terminated the petitioners’ employment by Memo No. 05 dated 22 January 2022.

The petitioners sought to quash the State Appellate Authority’s order and, by amendment, the consequential termination memo.

1. Whether the District Magistrate’s and District Superintendent of Education’s directions to prepare a fresh merit list were within their competence under the 2006 Rules, and whether the State Appellate Authority could treat the question of competence as irrelevant.

2. Whether the State Appellate Authority’s findings were sustainable, including whether it relied on enquiry material without affording the petitioners an effective opportunity to meet it.

The Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 governed the appointments; Rule 9 prescribed the employment procedure and Rule 18 provided the mechanism for complaints concerning employment.

Where a statute assigns a power to a specified authority, that power must be exercised by that authority and cannot be supplied by another official’s direction; the Court referred to State of U.P. v. Singhara Singh, AIR 1964 SC 358, and Purtabpore Co. Ltd. v. Cane Commissioner of Bihar, AIR 1970 SC 1968.

The Court also relied on Ajay Hansraj v. State of Bihar for the principle that the District Magistrate and District Superintendent of Education lacked jurisdiction to interfere with appointments under the 2006 Rules, and on D.K. Yadav v. J.M.A. Industries Ltd., (1993) 3 SCC 259, for the requirement of a fair and reasonable opportunity where an action has civil consequences.

The 2008 notification establishing the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal and the 2009 substitution of Rule 18 formed part of the statutory appellate framework.

The Court held that the State Appellate Authority erred in treating the District Magistrate’s competence as immaterial.

Although the Block Development Officer was the competent authority, the record did not establish that the Officer’s endorsement of the District Superintendent’s direction reflected an independent exercise of statutory power after application of mind.

The State Appellate Authority also relied on a 2006 enquiry report to find the counselling register forged, but the record did not show that the petitioners had been provided the material or an effective opportunity to rebut it; that finding carried serious civil consequences.

Further, the Authority rejected the District Appellate Authority’s findings for want of jurisdiction without adequately addressing the High Court’s earlier remand directing examination of the employment dispute.

Because the allegations and records raised disputed factual questions, the Court declined to decide the parties’ appointment claims conclusively in the writ proceedings.

It also quashed the consequential termination Memo No. 05 dated 22 January 2022.

Pending the fresh decision, both the petitioners and private respondents were permitted to continue in employment, subject to the outcome of the appeal; no recovery was to be made for remuneration received for work actually performed.

The writ application was partly allowed, with no order as to costs.