Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.15186 of 2009 ====================================================== Sunil Kumar Khan S/O Late Achutanand Khan R/O Vill.- Dhobi Tola Near Kali Asthan, P.O/P.S. & Distt.- Khagaria Versus .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Education Officer Cum Secretary Zila Parishad Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Panel Nirman Samiti, Khagaria 3. District Superintendent Of Education, Khagaria 4. The Secretary, Secondary Education Human Resources Deptt., Bihar, Patna 1 5. Mr. Yogendra Paswan, Member Zila Shikshak Apiliya Pradhikar, Khagaria 6. Mr. Benktesh Sharma S/O Sri Tulsi Sharma R/O Chitragupta Nagar, Khagaria P.S. Sahayak Thana Distt.- Khagaria .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner : Mr. Vivekanand Vivek, Advocate For the State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar Sinha, A.C. to AAG-13 For Respondent No.6 : Mr. Rajeeva Roy, Advocate Mr. Makardhwaj Upadhyay, Advocate ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL ORDER 15 27-02-2013
Legal Reasoning
able to make out a case warranting interference of this Court in its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. As a result, this writ application is dismissed.
Arguments
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State as well as the respondent no.6 and perused the records of the case. Through this writ application, the petitioner seeks quashing of the order dated 8.8.2009 passed by the District Teachers’ Employment Appellate Authority, Khagaria in Appeal Case No.179 of 2009 as contained in Annexure-7 by which the petitioner’s appointment as Sanskrit Teacher in Sri Krishna High School, Nayagaon under Khagaria district has been cancelled and a direction has been given to appoint the respondent no.6. 2 Patna High Court CWJC No.15186 of 2009 (15) dt.27-02-2013 2 / 5 From perusal of the impugned order it appears that, upon a complaint filed by the respondent no.6, the appellate authority proceeded to make scrutiny of the appointment and has come to the conclusion that though the respondent no.6 participated in counselling and though he was a trained teacher but he was placed below the petitioner who was untrained and was appointed. In above view of the matter, the appellate authority found the appointment of the petitioner to be contrary to the statutory provisions as contained in Rule 6(x) which provides that panel for trained and untrained teachers could be prepared separately and at the first instance the trained teachers should be appointed. If vacancy still exists in that case the untrained teachers would be given benefit of appointment. However, it has been held by the appellate authority that in this case reverse process has been adopted by the Selection Committee as in place of a trained teacher an untrained teacher has been given benefit of the appointment. The document has been appended in the supplementary affidavit-cum-rejoinder to show cause of opposite party no.2. A reference has been made therein of M.J.C. No.1984 of 2010 though the affidavit has been filed in the writ application itself. 3 Patna High Court CWJC No.15186 of 2009 (15) dt.27-02-2013 3 / 5 Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent no.6 could not have been appointed in view of the fact that he did not give his consent letter for acceptance of his joining. It is next contended that the respondent no.6 had obtained the degree of B.Ed. from Sampoornanand Sanskrit University in the year 1992 which was not a recognized institution at the relevant point of time, as would be apparent from the list provided by the District Education Officer, Saharsa-Cum- Information Officer, which clearly indicates that the petitioner’s institution was granted recognition since 1999. Thus, it is contended that he could not have been appointed considering him a trained teacher. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.6 has submitted that the petitioner is trying to create a confusion by appending such document which would not serve the relevant purpose inasmuch as the petitioner has been awarded the concerned degree in the year 1992 at the time when the National Teacher Education Council Act was not enforced as the same was enforced in the year 1995. Learned counsel has drawn attention of this Court towards Rule 4(iv)(kha) which clearly indicates that in case the concerned degree is of the period prior to enforcement of the aforesaid Act then the same should be 4 Patna High Court CWJC No.15186 of 2009 (15) dt.27-02-2013 4 / 5 recognized by the Department of Education of the State Government for its acceptance for the purpose of appointments. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the document appended as Annexure-E to show that the concerned institution was recognized by the State of Bihar vide memo No.394 dated 11.5.1983 itself. This document has not been denied either by the petitioner or by the State. So far the question of consent is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent no.6 has submitted that such issue emerges only after appointment letter is issued in favour of a person in view of the provisions as contained in Rule 6(x) of the Bihar Nagar Nikai Madhyamik Awam Uchchtar Madhyamik Shikshak (Niyojan Awam Sewa Shart) Niyamawali, 2006. I find force in the submissions raised on behalf of the respondent no.6. The impugned order passed by the appellate authority clearly indicates that, though the respondent no.6 had participated in the counselling and though he was a trained person, he was not given any appointment letter rather the petitioner was appointed in his place. Thus, the issue of consent does not arise as it is nobody’s case that an appointment letter was issued in favour of the respondent no.6 and thereafter, he did not turn up. So far the next issue of the B.Ed. degree is concerned, the allegation of the 5 Patna High Court CWJC No.15186 of 2009 (15) dt.27-02-2013 5 / 5 petitioner does not have any foundation inasmuch as the document appended by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit, as discussed above, clearly indicates that this refers to the recognition which have been given by the National Teacher Education Council after its creation. The respondent no.6 has obtained his degree of B.Ed. the year 1992, admittedly prior to enforcement of the concerned Act and creation of NTEC. Thus, this limb of argument would also not be available for the petitioner as the factum of grant of recognition to the concerned institution vide Memo No.394 dated 11.5.1983 by the State of Bihar has not been denied either by the petitioner or by the State. Accordingly, it is held that the petitioner has not been
Decision
However, there will be no order as to costs. N.H./- (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J)