Murlidhar Singh & Ors v. The State of Bihar and Ors.) wherein, it has been held as follows
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL WRIT JURISDICTION CASE NO.18888 OF 2012 ================================================== ANIL PRASAD SINGH SON OF LATE PRABHU NATH PRASAD SINGH RESIDENT OF VILLAGE - GOGHIA, P.O. - MASHRAKHA, P.S. - MASHRAKHA, DISTRICT - SARAN , AT PRESENT POSTED AS AN ASSISTANT TEACHER IN GOVT. PRIMARY SCHOOL BAGAUCHCHIA, ANCHAL - LAHLADPUR, DISTRICT - SARAN .... .... PETITIONER/S VERSUS 1.THE STATE OF BIHAR 2.THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, EDUCATION DEPARTMENT GOVERNMENT OF BIHAR, PATNA 3.THE DIRECTOR, PRIMARY EDUCATION, BIHAR, PATNA 4.THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE, SARAN 5.THE DEPUTY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSIONER-CUM-CHAIRMAN, DISTRICT EDUCATION ESTABLISHMENT COMMITTEE, SARAN 6.THE DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, SARAN 7.THE DISTRICT PROGRAMME OFFICER (ESTABLISHMENT) , SARAN 8.THE DISTRICT TREASURY OFFICER, SARAN 9.THE DISTRICT ACCOUNTS OFFICER, SARAN 10.THE BLOCK EDUCATION OFFICER, LAHLADPUR, DISTRICT - SARAN. .... .... RESPONDENT/S =================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s:Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra For the Respondent/s:Mr. Anil Kr Uapdhyay SC20 =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2/ 17-06-2013 Heard counsel for the parties. The issue raised in this writ application as to whether a teacher working in Primary School having the qualification of Sahitya Alankar from Deoghar Vidyapeeth is entitled for being promoted in the B.A trained pay scale has been answered by a Division Bench of this Court in the order dated 27.11.2012 in C.W.J.C. No. 13836 of 2012 Patna High Court CWJC No.18888 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 2 (Murlidhar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) wherein, it has been held as follows:- “We are informed that the petitioners are governed by the Bihar Taken Over Elementary School Teachers‟ Promotion Rules, 1993 (hereinafter referred to as „the Rules). Clause-8 of sub-section (1) of Rule 2 of the Rules defines “Grade-6” to mean “Trained graduate Selection Scale Rs. (2200-4000)”. Clause 14 of the said sub-section defines the term “Trained graduate” to mean “those persons who are equivalent graduates possess or said Rules qualification and are trained”. Rule 5 of the for “eligibility”. Clause 3 of the said Rule 5 provides, “for promotion to Grade-6- Trained post-graduate and minimum 12 provides years of service in Grade-5, or trained graduate and minimum 18 years of service in Grade-5”. The petitioners claim that they having obtained qualification of Sahitya Alankar from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar; they possess qualification equivalent to graduate; the petitioners being trained graduates, are entitled to promotion to Grade-6. The question that precipitates is whether the qualification of Sahitya Alankar possessed by the petitioners is equivalent to graduate and that the petitioners are eligible for promotion to Grade-6.
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.18888 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 3 We have to refer to Articles 358 and 359 of the Bihar Education Code. Article of 358 certificate from National Universities “recognition deals with and the equivalence with respect to the degrees granted by the recognized University.” As far as Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is concerned, the only recognized qualifications equivalent to are Secondary „Praveshika‟ School Examination or Matriculation and Sahityabhushan equivalent to Intermediate. It further says that the said recognition was extended upto 31st December, 1987. Meaning thereby that since 1st January, 1988 even those qualifications are not considered equivalent for the purpose of appointment of teachers. Evidently the qualification of Sahitya Alankar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment of teachers. Article 359 of the Bihar Education Code makes the intention of the State Government not to engage any teacher who does not possess a Secondary School Examination certificate from a recognized Board or a degree from a statutory University. It reads thus: “Article 359. Appointment to teacher‟s post forbidden on the basis of equivalence of Certificates.- In order to raise the quality of teaching in school, it has been decided by the State Government that only those persons who have passed examinations Patna High Court CWJC No.18888 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 4 held by the Bihar School Examination Board, Central Board of Education, Secondary Examination Boards of other States or Degrees obtained from statutory Universities shall be compulsory for appointment to the post of teachers in the Primary, Middle and High Schools. (2) x x x x x x------ (3) But if teachers of Primary, Middle and High Schools pass examination equivalent to Intermeidate, Gradate and Post-Graduate Degrees whose equivalence is recognized by the Personnel Department as mentioned in the preceding Article, may be promoted to higher pay scale beyond matriculation. This facility shall not be given to Middle trained teachers for getting Matric trained pay scale on the basis of equivalence. For getting Matric trained scale of pay, a Middle trained teacher must pass the Secondary School Examination from the Bihar School Examination Board.” It may be reiterated here that the qualification of Sahitya Alankar is not mentioned in the preceding article, Article 358. It is thus clear that the qualification of Sahitya Alankar secured from Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment and promotion of the teachers. In above view of the matter, we hold Patna High Court CWJC No.18888 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 5 that in the State of Bihar the certificate of Sahitya Alankar conferred by the Hindi Vidyapeeth, Deoghar is not recognized for the purpose of appointment or promotion of a teacher. The same view has been expressed by this Court in the matters of State of Bihar & ors. v. Mamta Kumari [2010(4) PLJR 318]; and of Poonam Sharma v. State of Bihar [2012(1) PLJR 226].” That being so, the reliance placed by
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the petitioner on the earlier Division Bench judgment in the case of Sanjay Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2009(4) PLJR 1038 is wholly misplaced. In fact today itself this aspect of the matter has been decided in another case being CWJC No. 18297 of 2012, wherein it has been held that :- The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Muralidhar Singh (supra) is per incurium because it has not considered the earlier Division Bench in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) has to be only also noted for its being rejected. The case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) had arisen out of an appointment on the post of librarian under Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik Awam Uchhttar Madhyamik Shiksha (Niyojan Awam Seva Sharten) Niyamawali, 2006 and thus, Patna High Court CWJC No.18888 of 2012 (2) dt.17-06-2013 6 the same did not any way relate to promotion on the post of B.A. trained teacher under 1993 Rules. It is well settled that a judgment would be relevant only to the issues involved therein. Thus in view of the fact that the scope of 1993 Rules was not at all considered in the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) nor the same was one relating to promotion in B.A. trained pay scale, the later judgment of Muralidhar Singh (supra) being per incurium does not arise. The two judgments are in two different fields and merely because the issue of qualification of Sahityalankar was involved in both of them will not make the case of Sanjay Kumar (supra) applicable in the facts of the present case. That being so, this writ application for the reasons recorded in the order of this Court passed today in C.W.J.C. No. 18297 of 2012, must be held to be wholly misconceived and is, accordingly, dismissed. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)