Narendra Kumar Verma v. The State Of Bihar

Learned counsel for the petitioner has also submitted the very fact that the petitioners were issued appointment letters after due verification would by itself be a proof of the fact that the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was recognized institution even in the State of Bihar and therefore Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 3 later on whatever clarification was received by the State Government as incorporated in the letter dated 26.06.2012 (Annexure-7) could not have been made applicable at least with regard to appointment and continuation of petitioners much less for cancellation of their appointment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also relied on the order of this Court dated 24.07.2012 passed in C.W.J.C No. 11749 of 2012 (Sangeeta Kumari and Ors vs the State of Bihar & Ors and its analogous cases) to contend that similar dispute as with regard to Baby Teacher's Training course from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh was decided by this Court in their favour.

Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that the petitioners did not fulfil the requirement as laid down in the Advertisement and therefore, when it was very much made clear in the appointment letter that their such appointment will be subject to verification of their original certificate, their appointment could be very well cancelled in the event, their certificates are found not valid and thus the petitioners cannot be heard to say that their cancellation of appointment is either bad or contrary to the terms and conditions of the appointment letter. He has also submitted that there is no document at least brought on record Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 4 by the petitioners which would go to show that either the State of Bihar has recognized the degree obtained from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur or even the State of Uttar Pradesh had recognized this institution which alone could have made the petitioners entitled to be eligible in terms of the Advertisement.

In the considered opinion of this Court, the writ application must fail for a simple reason that there is no clinching evidence brought on record by the petitioners which would go to show much less establish that Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was a recognized institution by any of the State Government or by the Central Government. The requirement in the Advertisement so far it relates to qualification of B.Ed reads as follows:- ^^o"kZ 1995 ds iwoZ dsUnz vFkok fdlh jkT; ds }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o"khZ; izf’k{k.k ijh{kk vFkok ch0,M0 dh ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksA o"kZ 1995 ds ckn ,u0lh0Vh0bZ0 }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o"khZ; f’k{kd izf’k{k.k fMIyksek ch0,M0 vFkok ch0,y0,M0 dh ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksA** (underlining for emphasis) As would be evident after 1995 (01.07.1995) the NCTE Act came into force therefore there was no difficulty in recognizing the qualification of B.Ed only from those institutions which had been approved/recognized by the NCTE. As with regard to the institutions which were in existence and had been giving the degree of B.Ed prior to Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 5

01.07.1995, the requirement both under the Special Rules 2010 and the Advertisement No. 210 of 2010 for filling up of 34540 post of teachers was that such B.Ed course must be of two years duration from the institution which was recognized either by the Central Government or by the State Government. The reliance in this regard placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the letter of the Director General of Investigation and Registration (M.R.T.P. Commission) cannot be the authority much less clinching document to establish that the State of Uttar Pradesh had recognized the institution. It is one thing to say that some institution is in existence and has been giving degrees but when a dispute would arise as to whether it has the accreditation/recognition or approval of a particular State Government, it is the letter of the duly authorized officer of the State Government which can be the proof of such approval or recognition. Thus, the only authority to certify the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was a recognized institution by the State of Uttar Pradesh could have been issued by the Governmental authorities of the State of U.P. and not by the Director General of Investigation and Registration (M.R.T.P. Commission), New Delhi. In any event, the concluding Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 6 portion of such report as contained in Annexure-9 dated

09.10.1992 reading as follows:- "From the deep scrutiny of the records and thorough probe under the MRTP Act, it is found that the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan is a autonomous body and is legally authorised to conduct different educational courses, to conduct examinations and to issue certificates to the successful candidates. The educational courses, examinations conducted by the Sansthan and the certificates issued by it are totally recognized and legal. The appointments, promotions and confirmations are being made in the schools under the Centre and State Govts. on the basis of the certificates of SHIKSHALANKAR (B.Ed.) and SHIKSHA PRAVESHIKA (Primary Teacher Certificate) issued by the Sansthan. Hence, to make comments against the recognition and legality of the Sansthan is not at all proper. " (underlining for emphasis) cannot establish the fact of the said institution being recognized by the State of U.P. What has been said therein is that the institution is in existence and has been imparting education but there is nothing conclusively to show that the said authority, A.D.G of the Investigation and Registration (M.R.T.P. Commission) had held the said institution to be recognized by the State of U.P. That would bring this Court to examine the stand Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 7 taken by the State of U.P. in its communication to the State of Bihar as with regard to the status of the said institution.

As a matter of fact when a large number of candidates were appointed from different institution communication was made by the State Government of Bihar to the respective State Government as with regard to such institution being recognized by the concerned governments. It is in response to such queries, the State of U.P. through its Special Secretary in the Higher Education department had given detailed information and this becomes more apparent from the following extract of the order passed by the Joint Secretary to the State Government of Bihar in his order dated 26.06.2012, wherein, it was held that Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was merely a Society registered under the Society Registration Act and neither the Institution nor its certificate has not been recognized by the competent authority of the State of Uttar Pradesh. For arriving this finding the Joint Secretary of the State of Bihar in the impugned order has discussed the whole issue in a very elaborate manner and therefore, it would be necessary to extract the said order in verbatim which reads as follows:- ^^mDr tksp izfrosnu ,oa funs’kd] jk"Vzh; i=kpkj laLFkku] dkuiqj ds i=kad C-37 fnukad 23-05-2012 …vuqyXudksa lfgr‰ rFkk fo’ks"k lfpo] mPp f’k{kk foHkkx] mRrj izns’k ’kklu ds i=kad 1043@lRrj&3&2012 fnukad 24-05-2012 Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 8 ds voyksdu ls fuEukaafdr rF; mHkj dj lkeus vk;s& (a) jk"Vzh; i=kpkj laLFkku] lkdsr uxj] dkuiqj lkslkbZVh ,DV 1860 ds /kkjk XXI ds rgr ,d fucaf/kr laLFkku gSa fuca/ku dh frfFk] fnukad 18-08-82 gSaA (b) mDr laLFkku }kjk dksbZ mikf/k ugha nh tkrh gSA (c) laLFkku }kjk i=kpkj ek/;e ls f’k{kk vyadkj ,oa f’k{kk izosf’kdk dk lnL;rk izek.k i= lacaf/kr vH;FkhZ dks mDr ijh{kk esa mRrhZ.k gksus ds mijkUr vad i= ds lkFk fn;k tkrk gSA ;g ijh{kk laLFkku ds Lrj ij gh yh tkrh gSa (d) mRrj izns’k ljdkj ds lekt dY;k.k foHkkx ds i=kad 4075 fnukad 19-09-96 }kjk ;g fu.kZ; fy;k x;k fd jk"Vzh; i=kpkj laLFkku] lkdsr uxj] dkuiqj }kjk f’k{kk vyadkj ,oa f’k{kk izosf’kdk dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ izek.k i= /kkjd dks izf’kf{kr osrueku dk Hkqxrku fjV ;kfpdk la[;k 1208@1995 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;y; }kjk ikfjr vkns’k ds v/khu fd;k tkrk jgsxkA (e) mRrj izns’k ’kklu ds mDr fu.kZ; ds ifjisz{; esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us mDr fjV dks fu"ikfnr dj fn; kA ;gka ;g vaduh; gS fd mPp U;k;ky;] bykgkckn …y[kum ihB‰ }kjk mDr vkns’k esa jk"Vzh; i=kpkj laLFkku }kjk fuxZr izek.k i=kssa dh oS/krk@ekU;rk ds laca/k esa dksbZ vfHkxr ugha fn;k x;k gSA (f) mPp f’k{kk foHkkx] mRrj izns’k ds i=kad&mPp f’k{kk vuqHkkx&A la[;k th0vkbZ0&33@,e&1&2000&15…15…53‰@99] fnukad 06-09-2000 ftldk mYys[k >kj[k.M mPp U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vkns’k] fnukad 18-11-09 esa fd;k x;k gS] esa Hkh jk"Vzh; i=kpkj laLFkku }kjk fuxZr f’k{kk vyadkj@f’k{kk izosf’kdk ds ekU;rk ds laca/k esa Li"V funs’k ugh fn;k x;k gSA mDr i= ess lekt dY;k.k foHkkx] mRrj izns’k ds i=kad 4075 fnukad 19-09-1996 dks gh vk/kkj cukdj mDr laLFkku }kjk fuxZr izek.k i= dks ekU;@oS/k@Lohdkj djus dh ckr vafdr dh x;h gSA (g) ekuuh; mPp U;k;y;] y[kum [k.MihB }kjk mDr okn eas ikfjr vkns’k vFkok mRrj izns’k ’kklu }kjk fuxZr funs’k esa dgh Hkh fu; qfDr ds laca/k esa mDr izek.k i=ksa dh oS/krk@ekU;rk ij fopkj ugha fd;k x;k gS cfYd dk; Zjr vizf’kf{kr f’k{kdksa dks Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 9 izf’kf{kr osrueku fn;s tkus ds laaca/k esa mDr izek.k i=ksa dh oS/krk@ekU;rk ij vkns’k@funs’k oknh ds lanHkZ esa fn;k x;k gSA (h) fo’ks"k lfpo] mRrj izns’k ’kklu us vius i=kad 1043@lRrj&3&2012 fnukad 24-05-2012 }kjk lalqfpr fd;k gS fd jk"Vzh; i=kpkj laLFkku] dkuiqj] dkuiqj fo’ofo|ky;] dkuiqj ls lEc} dksbZ laLFkku ugha gSA mDr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"V gksrk gS fd ^^jk"Vzh; i=kpkj laLFkku] dkuiqj** ,d lkslkbVh ,DV ds v/khu fucaf/kr laLFkk gS rFkk mlds }kjk fuxZr izek.k i=ksa dh ekU;rk l{ke izkf/kdkj ls izkIr ugha gSA vr% foHkkxh; fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ^^jk"Vzh; i=kpkj laLFkku] dkuiqj** ds }kjk fuxZr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vH;FkhZ;ksa dh fu; qfDr jkT; ds fo|ky; ksa esa f’k{kd ds in ij ugha dh tk ldrh gSA g0@& …ds0 ds0 jk;‰ la; qDr lfpoA Kkikad&7@fo03&18@12 437@ iVuk fnukad 26@06@2012** From a bare reading of the aforementioned order nothing would be left for speculation for the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur which is out and out a private institution was merely a Society Registered under the Society Registration Act and at no point of time has been recognized or approved by the State of U.P. In view of the above, there would be no difficulty in also rejecting that part of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that as a matter of fact prior to

26.06.2012 there was no Governmental decision of the State Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 10 Bihar that Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was not recognized in the State of Bihar. This Court fails to understand that as to how the respondents could be required to prove negative inasmuch as it was/is for the petitioners to prove that the said institution is recognized by the State of U.P. In order to prove their such claim the petitioners had to produce the document showing that the said institution i.e. Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur is recognized by the competent authority of the State of U.P. As noted above, nothing has been brought on record by the petitioners to show that the said institution is recognized by the State of U.P. In that view of the matter, this Court must hold that the documents which have been brought by the petitioner as on date did not establish Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur to be a recognized institution of any State Government much less of the State of U.P. Once this finding is arrived by this Court there will have no difficulty in approving the termination order of the petitioners which is only in continuation of the terms and conditions contained in the appointment letter.

In the appointment letter it was very clearly mentioned that such appointment was subject to the verification of the certificates to be produced by the petitioners. Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was not Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 11 recognized by the State of Bihar in terms of the requirement of the Advertisement, as quoted above and thus the decision taken by the competent authority cannot be said to be bad. At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has sought to rely on a document issued by the Higher Education Section of the State of U.P. dated 6th of September, 2000 which according to him would support the case of the petitioners and the plea is that had the authorities at least given the show cause notice to the petitioners, they could have produced this document in support of their claim. In view of the fact that this document is not on record and has been only produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner after this order was already dictated, this Court cannot take the said document into account but then taking into account that the impugned order seems to have been passed merely on the basis of the State Government instructions dated 26.06.2012(Annexure-7), this Court would give additional liberty to the petitioners to approach the Director, Primary Education by filing a representation against their order of termination, wherein, they may also enclose the aforementioned letter of the State of U.P. Thus the Director, Primary Education in view of the earlier governmental decision dated 26.06.2012contained in Patna High Court CWJC No.21805 of 2012 (2) dt.19-12-2013 12 Annexure-7 the impugned order will place the matter before the competent authority of the State Government for taking any appropriate decision.