Md. Aslam v. The State of Bihar

.. Mr. M.K. Singh, G.P. XII **** /9/ 03.07.2009 Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State.

2. Petitioners have passed their teachers training course from Millia Sir Saiyed Teachers Training College, Rambagh, Purnea, in sessions 1983-1985, 1984-1986, 1985-1987, 1986-1988 and 1988-1990. This application has been filed for quashing of the 3 order, contained in Memo No. 334, dated 24.11.2000, (Annexure 4) issued by the Director, Research and Training, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, Patna, cancelling recognition of Millia Sir Saiyed Teachers Training College, Rambagh, Purnea, prior to 1994. Along with order, dated

24.11.2000, a list of institutions have been annexed in which name of petitioners’ institution is at serial no. 11. The reason for petitioners’ grievance is that on account of the order cancelling recognition of concerned institution prior to 1994, petitioners’ certificate of training from this very institution has become meaningless and they are not in a position to be selected and appointed on the post of trained Panchayat Teachers. Controversy regarding recognition of this institution is persisting since 1985, i.e., the time since when this institution is said to have been established. On perusal of Annexure 12, i.e., order passed by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 7046 of 1997 (Millia Sir Saiyed Primary Teacher’s Training College, Rambagh, Purnea, through it’s Secretary Vrs. The Chairman, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna, and others), it transpires that several writ applications have been filed by this institution either for recognition or for allowing it’s students to appear in the examination. In C.W.J.C. No. 7046 of 1997 it was held that establishment of institution itself was in violation of Non- 4 Government Teachers Training Institution Rules framed under Non- Government Primary Teachers training College (Control and Regulation) Act, 1982, since prior permission of the State Government was not taken. However, from this very order it transpires that in the year 1999 vide order, contained in Memo No. 332, dated 18.11.1999, recognition accorded to this institution by the State Government prior to 1994 had been cancelled. The order, contained in Memo No. 332, dated 18.11.1999, was challenged by the petitioners of present writ application as well as others by filing three writ applications, i.e., C.W.J.Cs. No. 4622, 11275 and 11640 of 2006. These writ applications were allowed by order, dated

26.09.2006, and the order, contained in Memo No. 332, dated

18.11.1999, was quashed. Against this order, no L.P.A. or S.L.P. was preferred by the State Government or any one, as such, it become final. Prior to order, dated 26.09.2006, passed in the writ applications, the impugned order, dated 24.11.2000, contained in Annexure 4 to the writ petition, had been issued. Basis for passing order, dated 24.11.2000, must have been the order, contained in Memo No. 332, dated 18.11.1991, though on reading the order, dated 26.09.2006, it do not transpire that the Court’s attention was drawn towards the order, dated 24.11.2000, contained in Memo No.

334. The counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on three 5 judgments of this Court passed in C.W.J.Cs. No. 5198 of 2006, 4622 of 2006 and analogous cases as well as order passed in C.W.J.C. No. 5045 of 2004 and analogous cases. In all these three writ applications it has been held that recognition can not be cancelled or withdrawn with retrospective effect as the right has accrued to the students and others on account of their passing the B.Ed. examination from said college and such right can not be taken away by passing orders having retrospective effect. Petitioners’ case is fully covered by all these three judgments, passed in connection with this very institution from which petitioners have completed their teachers’ training course.

3. Considering all these facts and specially the order, contained in Annexures 1 and 1/A, I find that order, contained in Memo No. 334, dated 24.11.2000 (Annexure 4) is fit to be quashed. Accordingly, it is quashed.

4. This application is allowed.

5. On account of quashing of Annexure 4 petitioners are entitled for all connected or consequential benefits. Cp:3/S.A. (Mridula Mishra, J.)