Bittu Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors.

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State, learned counsel for the Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission (B.M.V.M.) and learned counsel for the private respondent no. 15.

The present writ petition has been filed commanding the respondent authorities to advertise the post of Vikash Mitra in Cluster- Ward no. 10, Gram Panchayat-Madarpur, Block- Amnour. Further prayer has been made for directing the respondent Sub-Divisional Officer, Marhaura, District- Saran to bring the letter dated 26.06.2023 by which the newly added respondent no. 15 has been appointed on the post of Vikash Mitra in Gram Panchayat- Madarpur and subsequently for quashing the said letter dated 26.06.2023.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a resident of Gram Panchayat- Madarpur belonging to SC category and eligible for appointment on the post of Vikash Mitra in Ward no. 10. He submits that the said post was filed by one Manish Kumar who was selected and appointed on this post through the merit list dated 12.03.2021. But, after serving for two years, the said Manish Kumar resigned and the post become vacant. Counsel submits that as per the basic rule of selection and appointment as well as the guidelines of the Mahadalit Vikash Mission, one merit list is valid for only 01 year, but his main grievance is that private respondent no. 15 was selected from the said merit list which was two years old, whereas, according to rule, the said merit list is valid for only 01 year. Counsel further submits that counter affidavit on behalf of Respondent nos. 12 & 13 (Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission) has been filed in which Annexure-D series is very categorical in this regard that validity of merit list for one year will be effective from the date of decision of the Executive Committee i.e. from 12.03.2021 and the said validity of merit list for one year shall be counted from the date of distribution of employment letter.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that as per Annexure-R/5, the private respondent no. 15 has been appointed vide letter dated 26.06.2023 and presently, she is working on the post of Vikash Mitra after resignation of earlier appointed Vikash Mitra.

Learned counsel appearing for the Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission (B.M.V.M.), on the other hand, submits that as per the rule, the merit list is valid for only one year, but he also submits that the private respondent no. 15 is working from the same panel issued in favour of the private respondent no. 15 on 26.06.2023.

Learned counsel for the private respondent no. 15 submits that it is the decision which has to be taken from the officials of State/Mahadalit Vikash Mission, but, she has been appointed and presently working, validly participated in the appointment process and there is no role of private respondent no. 15 in issuance of her appointment letter but by virtue of issuance of appointment letter and upon her joining, right has accrued to the petitioner.

After hearing the parties and upon perusal of the Chayan Margdarshika for Vikash Mitra, it transpires to this Court that it’s Clause- XI & XII (annexed as Annexure-E series) are very much relevant which states as follows:-

It is also relevant to quote Clause-5 of the Executive Committee of the Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission, as recorded in its meeting dated 12.03.2021, which states as follows:-

Here in the present case, admittedly, one Manish Kumar was appointed on the post of Vikash Mitra on 12.03.2021, meaning thereby, the merit list was prepared in the year 2021 and as per the aforesaid clause-5, the said merit list is valid for one year and date of executive instruction is 15.03.2021. In this regard, Mission Director, Bihar Mahadalit Vikash Mission has also issued a letter No. 565 dated 03.06.2021 in which it has been accepted that the validity of Mahadalit Vikash Mitra is one year but admittedly, after a lapse of about two years, private respondent no. 15 was appointed.

From the aforesaid rule, it transpires that relating to appointment, the authority concerned after the S.D.O. is the District Magistrate. Here, the S.D.O has issued letter of appointment dated 26.06.2023 which is in gross violation of the said rule and appeal has to be preferred before the concerned District Magistrate.

In this view of the matter, petitioner is hereby directed to move before the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra (Respondent no. 5) for his grievances which he has raised in the writ petition along with a copy of this order within 30 days from today and the District Magistrate, Saran at Chapra upon hearing the private respondent no. 15 and the petitioner shall take decision in the light of rule and executive instruction dated 15.03.2021, within 90 days from the date of production of this order before him. It is made clear that the said 90 days shall be counted from the date of appearance of all concerned in this matter.

Accordingly, with the aforesaid observation and direction, this writ petition stands disposed off.