BAL MUKUND SINGH v. THE STATE OF BIHAR & Ors.

Patna High Court CWJC No.10005 of 2009 (4) dt.15-02-2012 2 The petitioner has also assailed the consequential order dated 24.12.2010 passed by the Mukhiya and Panchayat Sachiv terminating the services of the petitioner on the ground of lack of qualification as per the decision of the Director of Primary Education contained in letter no. 3327 dated

08.09.2008. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had passed the teachers training course examination from All India Correspondence Coaching Society, Calcutta and the certificate as contained in Annexure-1 would itself go to show that the petitioner had passed the diploma examination conducted by the aforementioned society which was registered by Government of West Bengal under the Societies Act

1961. He has further submitted that the appointment of the petitioner was made as a trained teacher by the order dated 29.11.2006 and after two and a half years of his continuation, he was subjected to a show cause notice of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority dated 28.05.2009, whereby and whereunder, he was asked to explain as to why his appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher on the basis of his having one year teachers training from All India Correspondence Coaching Society, Calcutta should Patna High Court CWJC No.10005 of 2009 (4) dt.15-02-2012 3 not be cancelled. He has also submitted that though the petitioner had filed the exhaustive show cause reply vide Annexure-4 to the writ application but the tribunal did not consider any of the facts or issues raised by the petitioner in the show cause reply and had directed for termination of the services of the petitioner by placing reliance on a notification of the State Government holding that the teachers training course of one year duration was not in accordance with the qualification laid down under the 2006 Rules. Learned counsel for the State on the other hand has submitted that in terms of Rule-2(x) of Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Sewa Sart Niyamawali) 2006. It is absolutely clear that the completion of only two years teachers training Course fulfillment qualification laid down for appointment on the post of teachers. He has also submitted that the petitioner on his own showing had not completed two years teachers training course and in fact he had also completed the one year teachers training course and passed the examination from an institute which was not recognized from the State of Bihar. Patna High Court CWJC No.10005 of 2009 (4) dt.15-02-2012 4 In the considered opinion of this court, the qualification for the post of Panchayat Teacher having been laid down under Rule 8 of the Rules reads as follows:- 8- fu;qfDr gsrq %& …d‰ vgZrk % iz[k.M f”k{kd ds fy;s %& 1- Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksa; 2- ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr f”k{k.k laLFkku ls mPprj ek/;fed vFkok bUVjehfM,V vFkok led{k ijh{kk m(cid:217)kh.kZ gksaA 3- jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~(N.C.T.E.)}kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf”k{k.k laLFkku ls nks o’khZ; f”k{kd izf”k{k.k fMIyksek ;k lfVZfQdsV vFkok izkjafHkd f”k{kk esa Lukrd …ch0,y0,M0‰ vFkok …ch0,M0‰ ds lkFk Lukrd vFkok led{k ;ksX;rkA “kkjhfjd f”k{kk f”k{kd ds fy, U;wure nks o’kksZa dk lfVZfQdsV …lh0ih0,M0‰ vFkok led{k ;ksX;rk izkIr gksA ijUrq bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu izFke fu;kstu esa os Sls mEehnokjksa dk Hkh fu;kstu fd;k tk ldsxk] tks ljdkj] }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; ls eSfVªd vFkok led{k ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gks rFkk jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~(N.C.T.E.)vf/kdre ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf”k{k.k fo|ky;@egkfo|ky; ls nks o’kksZa dk f”k{kd izf”k{k.k ijh{kk@ch0,M0@2 o’kksZa dk “kkjhfjd izf”k{k.k dk lfVZfQdsV …lh0ih0,M0‰ ikl gksA iapk;r f”k{kd ds fy;s %& 1- Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksA 2- ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr f”k{k.k laLFkku ls mPprj ek/;fed@bUVjehfM,V vFkok led{k ijh{kk m(cid:217)kh.kZ gksA 3- jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~(N.C.T.E.)}kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf”k{k.k laLFkku ls nks o’khZ; f”k{kd izf”k{k.k fMIyksek ;k lfVZfQdsV vFkok izkjafHkd f”k{kk esa Lukrd ¼ch0,y0Mh0½A ijUrq bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu izFke fu;kstu es a oSls mEehnokjksa dk Hkh fu;kstu fd;k tk ldsxs tks ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; ls eSfVªd vFkok led{k ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gks rFkk jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~ (N.C.T.E.) vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ Patna High Court CWJC No.10005 of 2009 (4) dt.15-02-2012 5 ekU;rk izkIr izf”k{k.k fo|ky;@egkfo|ky; ls nks o’kksZa dk f”k{kd izf”k{k.k ijh{kk ikl gksA would leave nothing for speculation that a candidate in order to be eligible for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher must be a trained teacher having completed two years teachers training course. As a matter of fact when Rule-2(x) has also defined training reading as follows:- (x) *izf”k{k.k* ls vfHkizsr gS jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~ ls ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o’khZ; izf”k{k.k vFkok ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls ch0,y0,M0 ;k ch0,M0A Nothing more would be required to go into the question as to whether the petitioner having one year teachers training course would not be eligible for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had passed such examination before coming into force of N.C.T.E Act and in fact the examination of the petitioner for the diploma course of teachers training had been conducted on 24.08.1991 would also be of no consequence, inasmuch as, even in the proviso to Rule-8(3) as underlined above, it has been clearly mentioned that even before coming into force of N.C.T.E Act, the teachers training qualification by a candidate must have been undergone and Patna High Court CWJC No.10005 of 2009 (4) dt.15-02-2012 6 completed in recognized teachers training College having two years course. In that view of the matter, this Court does not find any flaw in the view taken by either the Government of Bihar and its being followed by the Panchayat Secretary and the Mukhiya in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner or in the impugned order passed by the tribunal, all of whom have taken the view that the petitioner’s one year teachers training qualification would not make him eligible for holding the post of Panchayat Teacher under 2006 Rules. In view of the above, this Court is not required to go into the question as to whether All India Correspondence Coaching Society, Calcutta registered by the Government of West Bengal under Societies Act would be fulfilling the requirement recognized training College/Institute. It has to be kept in mind that All India Correspondence Coaching Society, Calcutta having been registered under the Society Registration Act 1961 by the Government of West Bengal would not automatically become recognized institution for the State of Bihar, inasmuch as, for the State of Bihar there has always been enactment for recognizing the training colleges Patna High Court CWJC No.10005 of 2009 (4) dt.15-02-2012 7 and the training certificates thereof. It is in this light that the Government had issued the orders for not accepting the certificates of such teachers training College recognized by the State of Bihar. Reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on a judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Mahendra Prasad vs The District Superintendent of Education, Katihar & Ors, reported in 1985 PLJR 709 is also wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, in that case there was no such Rule for appointment on the post of teachers requiring two year teachers training Course and from the factual narration of that case, it would become clear that the same is related to the appointment of teachers at the point of time when there were no embodied statutory Rules. Thus the ratio laid down in the case of Sri Mahendra Prasad (supra) cannot be made applicable to the present case where there is statutory Rule laying down the requirement of particular kind of trained teacher having completed two years teachers training course as a condition precedent for appointment on the post of teacher. In the light of the aforementioned discussion, this Court does not find any error in Patna High Court CWJC No.10005 of 2009 (4) dt.15-02-2012 8 the impugned order and consequently this writ application being devoid of any merit is, accordingly, dismissed and the interim order dated

07.09.2009 is also hereby vacated. Ranjan (Mihir Kumar Jha, J)