Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14501 of 2012 ====================================================== Shanti Devi Wife Of Chandrika Rawat Resident Of Village- Chhathu Dhamana, P.S.- Jamui, District- Jamui 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Magistrate, Jamui 3. The Deputy Development Commissioner-Cum-Chief Executive Officer, Versus .... .... Petitioner Jamui 4. The District Superintendent Of Education, Jamui 5. The District Programme Officer, Jamui .... .... Respondents ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 22-01-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows:- “1. That an appropriate writ may be issued commanding upon the respondent authorities to issue the appointment letter of the petitioner for the post of Supervisor under the Integrated Child Development Service of Department of Social Welfare, Government of Bihar, Patna considering the experience of the petitioner as „Anganbari Sevika‟ for more than 10 years. As per the provisions laid by the Governmen.”
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that even when the petitioner fulfills the qualification for the post of vkWxuckM+h i;Zosf{kdk in terms of the vkWxuckM+h i;Zosf{kdk fu;qfDr ekxZnf’kZdk] 2010, she has not been short-listed for such appointment. In this Patna High Court CWJC No.14501 of 2012 (2) dt.22-01-2013 2 regard, it has also been explained that the petitioner was working as a Anganbari Sevika since 6.11.1985 and during continuance of her engagement as Anganbari Sevika, she had also passed supplementary examination of Pravesika Pariksha, 1998 conducted by Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar, Bihar and in support of the same, she has enclosed the certificate issued by the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar dated 4.9.2008. Learned counsel for the State having filed counter affidavit has relied on paragraph no.8, which for the sake of clarity is quoted hreinbelow:- “8. That the said institution, under Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar from where the petitioner has passed in Madhyama examination and Sahitya Bhushan examination, has not been considered as a recognized institution by the Department of Human Development Resources, Government of Bihar, vide its letter no. 3152 dated 25-05-2008, the Department of Human Development Resources, Government of Bihar, has published a list of those institutions which are not recognized for the appointment of teachers. This list is having the name of Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar on the serial no.2 therefore the claim of the petitioner is not valid in this regard since the guidelines of the Department of Social Welfare Department, Government of Bihar, 2011 for selection of Sewika and Sahayika has accepted only those institutions for relevant qualification which are approved by Department of Human Resources Development.” Patna High Court CWJC No.14501 of 2012 (2) dt.22-01-2013 3 Learned counsel for the State has further stated that the impression of the petitioner that her case for appointment on the post of vkWxuckM+h i;Zosf{kdk was rejected on the ground of the genuineness of the experience certificate is wholly incorrect and in fact the case of the petitioner was not found worth consideration because she did not fulfil the prescribed educational qualification and in this regard, attention of this Court has been invited towards paragraph no.9 of the counter affidavit, which also is quoted herienbelow:- “9. That the petitioner‟s application has not been rejected on the basis of experience certificate but since the institution (Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar) from where she has passed the relevant examination, has not been recognized by the Government of Bihar, therefore her marks obtained was not considered by selection committee. While preparing of the merit list of Lady Supervisors.” In the considered opinion of this Court, the counter affidavit does not give exact answer to the question which would really fall for consideration in this case. i;Zosf{kdk fu;kstu ekxZnf”kZdk] 2010 lays down the eligibility for both types of the candidates, namely, those who have to be appointed from open market against the 75% of vacancies and other 25% of the post which has to be filled up from the working Anganbari Sevika. To this extent, it would be necessary to quote the relevant portion of the ekxZnf”kZdk], Patna High Court CWJC No.14501 of 2012 (2) dt.22-01-2013 4 which reads as follows:- ^^…iii‰ vuqcU/k ij fu;kstu ds fy, vgZrk,W%& …d‰ vH;FkhZ dsoy efgyk gksA …[k‰ vH;FkhZ Hkkjr dh ukxfjd gksA …x‰ vkosfndk lacaf/kr ftyk {ks= dh LFkk;h fuoklh gksA blds fy, lacaf/kr vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh dk vkoklh; izek.k i= vfuok;Z gksxkA …iv‰…d‰ ftyk Lrj ij Lohd‘r cy ds fo:) fjDr inksa esa ls 75 izfr”kr in ftyk Lrjh; p;u lfefr ds ek/;e lss vuqca/k ij lh/ks Hkjs tk;saxs ,oa “ks’k 25 izfr”kr in vkaxuckM+h lsfodkvksa ls Hkjs tk,axsA efgyk i;Zosf{kdk ds fy, vgZrk fuEukafdr gksxh%& vfuok;Z vgZrk %& Hkkjr esa ekU;rk izkIr fdlh fo”ofo|ky; ls LukrdA okaNuh; vgZrk%& fuEufyf[kr fo’k; esa Lukrdksrj] ¼U;wure 45 izfr”kr vad½ ds lkFk mrh.kZ mEehnokjksa dks cksul vad fn;s tk;saxs%& …i‰ lekt “kkL= ¼ ii‰ lekt dk;Z … iii‰ x‘g foKku … iv‰ euksfoKku … v½ cky fodkl ,oa iks’k.k ¼ vi‰ vkgkj foKku … vii½ Je ,oa lekt “kkL=A led{k ijh{kk mrh.kZ gks fdUrq blds varxZr rduhdh f”k{kk dh fMxzh ¼iksysVsdfud] ;wukuh f”k{kk vkfn½ “kkjhfjd f”k{kk] izkP;Hkk’kk@Hkk’kk fo”ks’k ls lacaf/kr fMxzh ¼ekSyoh] mi&”kkL=h½ rFkk LoSfPNd laLFkkuksa }kjk iznr le:i fMxzh …ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx }kjk of.kZr‰ efgyk i;Zosf{kdk in ij fu;kstu gsrq lfEefyr ugha gSA 'ks’k 25 izfr”kr in vkWxuckM+h lsfodkvksa ds fy, d.kZkfdar gksaxsA bl dksfV ds vUrxZr p;u gsrq vgrkZ fuEu izdkj gksxh%& 2…d‰ …1‰ U;wure eSfV~d ;k led{k mrh.kZ …2‰ p;u o’kZ dh igyh tuojh dks 10 o’kZ dk dk;ZdkyA** (underlining for emphasis) From reading of the aforementioned provision, it Patna High Court CWJC No.14501 of 2012 (2) dt.22-01-2013 5 would be very clear that for the working Anganbari Sevika, the requirement was that they must be educationally qualified with a minimum of Matriculation or its equivalent. The petitioner when she was appointed was not a Matriculate and, therefore, even if she had worked on the post of Anganbari Sevika from 1985, that by itself could not have made her qualified for the post of Paryavekshika unless she had passed the Matriculation Examination or its equivalent. The petitioner has not passed the Matriculation Examination but she claims to have passed an equivalent examination from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar. There is no Government order on record which shows the qualification issued by the Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar to be equivalent to the Matriculation qualification. Thus, even if the plea of the respondents as with regard to the present qualification for Anganbari Sevika as contained in Annexure B to the counter affidavit, reading as follows:- ^^4-1 ’kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk % lsfodk p;u gsrq U;wure “kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk eSfV~d mRrh.kZ gksxhA eSfV~d ds led{k vU; ;ksX;rkvksa dks mlh fLFkfr esa ekU;rk nh tk;sxh tcfd mls ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx }kjk iapk;r f”k{kd fu;kstu gsrq ekU;rk nh xbZ gksA** is not taken into account on account of such qualification being introduced after the appointment of the petitioner on the post of Patna High Court CWJC No.14501 of 2012 (2) dt.22-01-2013 6 Anganbari Sevika, this Court will have to still find out as to whether at any point of time the State Government had issued an order for treating the qualification of Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar as an equivalent of Matriculation. The petitioner has brought no such decision of the State Government on record and on the other hand the Respondents have annexed the order of the State Government dated 8.9.2008 as Annexure-A to counter affidavit which goes to show that the Human Resources Development Department on 25.8.2008 had issued its order in respect of different institutions and the course conducted therein and had held that the qualification of Pravesika of Hidi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar will not be treated to be equivalent of Matriculation. In that view of the matter this Court will have no option but to hold that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of Mahila Paryavekshika The things however could have been entirely different if the qualification for the post of Anganbari Sevika in the year 1985 was Matriculation or equivalent and the petitioner’s appointment could have been made as a matriculate candidate even on the basis of her having the qualification of Praveshika from Hindi Vidyapith, Deoghar. Such however is not the case of the petitioner, Patna High Court CWJC No.14501 of 2012 (2) dt.22-01-2013 7 inasmuch as, she was initially appointed as a non-matriculate Anganbari Sevika and, therefore, when there is no order of the State Government on record treating the qualification of Pravekshika of Hindi Vidyapith Deoghar to be equivalent to Matriculation, it has to be necessarily held that the petitioner does not possesses the essential qualification as laid down for the post of Mahila Pravekshika in the year 2010, by which time the Govt. decision dated 8.9.2008 holding the qualification of Praveshika from Hindi Vidyapeeth to be not equivalent to Matriculation had already come into force and has been applied in all such similar cases as explained in the counter affidavit and its Annexure-C the proceeding of District Selection Committee dated 29.5.2012. That being so, this application is devoid of any merit and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Rishi/-