The State of Bihar v. though the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bih
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.2146 of 2013 ====================================================== 1. Kumari Indrakala Sinha, wife of Harisankar Prasad Singh, resident of village Imadpur, P.O. Imadpur, P.S. Bhagwanpur, District Vaishali 2. Manoj Kumar, son of late Raghunath Chaudhary, resident of village Chhoti Yushufpru, P.O. Hajipur, P.S. Industrial Area Hajipur, District Vaishali 3. Shiv Kumar, son of Sri Dev Narayan Sah, resident of village Mandaedih, P.O. Mandaedih, P.S. Patepur, District Vaishali 1. The State of Bihar Versus though the Commissioner cum Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 2. The Director (Primary Education), Department of Education, Govt. of .... .... Petitioners Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna 3. The District Magistrate, Vaishali 4. The District Education Officer, Vaishali 5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment) Vaishali 6. The Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur, Vaishali 7. The Block Development Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali 8. The Block Education Officer, Bhagwanpur, Vaishali 9. The Block Education Officer, Hajipur, Vaishali .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Durga Nand Jha For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prashant Pratap Gp6 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 3 10-07-2013
Legal Reasoning
Heard counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads as follows: “ I. To quash the memo no. 6363 dated 29.9.12 issued by the respondent no.4, the District Education Officer Vaishali (herein after to be referred as D.E.O.) whereby and whereunder the respondent no.4 has asked concerned Block Education Officer to scrutinize the engagements made in their block on the post of Block/ Panchayat teacher and to cancel the engagement of those Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2013 (3) dt.10-07-2013 2 Block/ Panchayat teacher including the petitioner with immediate effect who have been engaged on the basis of training certificate from Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir Sevapuri, Varansi acquired in the session prior to 2000- 01. II. To further quash the consequential order contained in memo no.40 dated 12.1012 issued by the Block Development Officer Bhagwanpur Vaishali whereby and whereunder the appointment of the petitioner no.1 has been cancelled. III. For issuance of an appropriate writ directing and commanding the respondents to give the petitioner all consequential benefit after quashing the aforesaid order of the respondent no.4 contained in memo no. 6363 dated 29.9.12. IV. To direct the respondent authority not to disturb the petitioner to discharging their duty on the post of Panchayat Teacher. V. To direct the respondent authority to pay the arrear of salary as well as current salary of the petitioner w.e.f. date of appointment to till today.”
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Durganand Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, in support of the aforementioned relief has submitted that the decision taken by the District Education Officer, Vaishali, contained in his letter no. 6363 dated 29.9.2012 and the consequential order passed by the Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhagwanpur Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2013 (3) dt.10-07-2013 3 (Vaishali) terminating the services of only petitioner no.1 is wholly without jurisdiction. In this regard he has submitted that the qualification of the training obtained by the petitioners from Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir Sevapuri, Varanasi prior to 2000- 01 cannot be held to be bad so as to vitiate the appointment of the petitioners on the post of Panchayat Teacher/ Prakhand Teacher. In this regard he has also relied on an order dated 12.9.2012, contained in Annexure 15, to contend that the Government itself has held that it is the only degree obtained from Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir Sevapuri, Varanasi whose degree has not been recognized by the State of Bihar for appointment on the post of teachers and the same will not in any way affect the Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir Sevapuri. Counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that so far petitioners no.2 and 3 are concerned, they have moved this Court without any cause of action because the order of the District Education Officer, Vaishali has yet not been acted upon in their case. It is only in case of petitioner no.1 that an order of termination has been passed. In the opinion of this Court the writ application of petitioners no. 2 and 3, therefore, is still premature because whenever they will be subjected to removal they will have an Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2013 (3) dt.10-07-2013 4 opportunity to prove that their degree obtained from Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir Sevapuri, Varanasi is valid even as per letter of the Govt. of Bihar dated 12.9.2012. Coming to the case of petitioner no.1 while the learned counsel for the State is of the view that an order of termination of service has to be assailed before the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal in the first instance in terms of Rule 18 of 2006 Rules, Mr. Jha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioner no.1, submits that as the District Education Officer had no power to control the service condition of a Panchayat Teacher and since it is his direction which had led to termination of service of petitioner no.1 in view of the consequential order passed by the Block Development Officer cum Executive Officer, Panchayat Samiti, Bhagwanpur, Vaishali, who too has got no power in respect of controlling the service condition of the Panchayat Teacher, this writ application against such an order being without jurisdiction will be maintainable. In the considered opinion of this Court the order removing petitioner no.1 describes as a Prakhand Shikshika who was initially appointed on 29.12.2010 and thereafter she has been shifted to the post of Prakhand Shikshika in Uchch Madhya Vidyalaya, Raghuosoi whereas her appointment was made in Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2013 (3) dt.10-07-2013 5 Prathamik Vidyalaya/ Bartaman Utkramit Madhya Vidyalaya, the power of termination of the service of the petitioner could be also exercised by the Block Development Officer if the petitioner is holding the post of Prakhand teacher. The general direction given by the District Education Officer in fact is also to all the appointing unit being a Panchayat level or Prakhand level for not recognizing the qualification of Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir Sevapuri, Varanasi upto the session 2000-01. This was done by him in terms of the clarification issued by the Director, Primary Education in letter no. 622 dated 12.9.2012. Such action on the part of the District Education Officer who is the head of the district in the Education Department cannot be said to be unauthorized or without jurisdiction. Being the District head he has to monitor all the functioning of programmes of Education Department being undertaken in the district and therefore, has asking the Panchayat unit/ Prakhand unit appointing for the post of Panchayat teacher/ Prakhand teacher to abide by the Government decision as circulated by the Director, Primary Education cannot be held to be an act contrary to the Government decision. The issue, therefore, would be that even if the petitioner no.1, who has been subjected to termination on the basis of instruction issued by the District Education Officer, has a valid Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2013 (3) dt.10-07-2013 6 claim of her qualification and such issue has arisen on account of the letter issued by the Director of Primary Education as referred to in the order of the District Education Officer, Vaishali dated 29.9.2012 he would be the best authority to decide the claim as to whether the qualification of the petitioner acquired from Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir Sevapuri, Varanasi in the session 1988- 90 was valid for the purposes of appointment on the post of teacher in the State of Bihar under 2006 Rules. This Court would, accordingly, remit the matter back to the Director, Primary Education to examine with regard to validity of the degree awarded by Seva Bharti Adhyapan Mandir Sevapuri, Varanasi and to that extent also re-examine his own decision, contained in letter no. 622 dated 12.9.2012, as contained in Annexure 15. The petitioners, therefore, may approach the office of the Director, Primary Education by filing their individual representation, whereafter the Director, Primary Education shall consider the individual case of the petitioners as with regard to validity of their qualification acquired by them in the year 1988- 90, 1993-95 and 1995-97 in terms of 2006 Rules for appointment on the post of teacher. The Director, Primary Education, must take his decision expeditiously preferably within a period of four Patna High Court CWJC No.2146 of 2013 (3) dt.10-07-2013 7 months from the date of filing of the individual and separate representation by the petitioners. It also goes without saying that if the order of termination of the petitioner no.1 is found to be bad by the Director, Primary Education on account of fulfilment of her qualification she will be entitled for her reinstatement with back wages but in case her degree or for that purpose qualification acquired by all the three petitioners are found to be ineligible, their services shall stand terminated. With the aforementioned observation and direction, this
Decision
application is disposed of. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-