Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14523 of 2013 ====================================================== Nand Lal Ray aged about 37 years, S/o Shri Babu Lal Ray, R/o Village- Chakdadan, P.O. Chakmajahid, P.S. Mahua, District-Vaishali.- Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 3. The Director, Secondary Education, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The Deputy Development Commissioner, Vaishali, at Hajipur. 5. The District Education Officer, Vaishali, at Hajipur 6. The District Programme Officer, (Establishment) Vaishali at Hajipur. 7. The Zila Parishad, Vaishali at Hajipur through its Executive Officer. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Arun Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “(i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the part of the order dated 13.6.2013 as contained in letter no. 893 dated 13.6.2013 issued by the Director (Secondary Education) of the Education Department addressed to all the Municipal Commissioner (Municipal Corporation), all the Chief Executive Officer of Zila Parishad by which it has been directed that the person who have passed the B.Ed. Degree on the date of submission of application form will be kept in the trained 2 category for consideration of their appointment in Secondary/ Higher Secondary appointment. (ii) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/ direction in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to appoint the petitioner for the post of Secondary Teacher (Social Science) in the Zila Parishad, Vaishali at Hajipur. (iii) For issuance of an appropriate writ holding and declaring that the petitioner since have passed the STET examination conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board and had completed his B.Ed. course for the Session 2011-12 at the time of submission of application form for appointment on the post of Secondary Teacher is eligible for treating him to under the trained category.” 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has submitted that the impugned order passed by the Director, Secondary Education, for treating the petitioner to be disqualified for the post of teacher advertised on 15.8.2012 for different post in the Government/ Nationalized/ Project High Schools is not only contrary to the Secondary Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 but also in violation of the order of this Court dated 27.5.2013 in C.W.J.C.No. 9435/2013 and its analogous cases. 4. Counsel for the petitioner has also submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the Teachers Training course, B.Ed. 3 examination, for 2010-12 Session from Babasaheb Bhimrao Ambedkar Bihar University, Muzaffarpur and thus, when he has already passed his such Teachers Training Examination in the month of October, 2012, he cannot be treated to be disqualified for the post of teacher in Secondary Schools. Alternatively, he has submitted that as the petitioner had already passed his Training Teacher Examination well before the date of preparation of merit list, he should be treated to be qualified even in terms of the impugned order dated 13.6.2010.
Legal Reasoning
5. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, has submitted that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification till the date of filing of the application in terms of the advertisement dated 15.8.2012, inasmuch as he had not completed his B.Ed. course and as such, he would be disqualified for being either included or selected in the merit list. 6. The facts, which are not in dispute and would be sufficient to dispose of this writ application, lie in a narrow compass. The State Government came out with an advertisement which was published in the newspaper on 15.8.2012 for filling up the post of teachers in various types of High Schools, namely, the Government High Schools, the Nationalized Government High Schools and Project Schools. The power of appointment on the 4 post of teachers in all different types of Government High Schools in terms of Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik Awam Uchchatar Madhyamik Shikshak (Noyojan Awam Seva Sarta) Niyamawali, 2006 has been vested in Nagar Parishad/ Nagar Panchayat/ Zila Parishad/ Nagar Nigam and in terms of the aforementioned 2006 Rules the educational qualification requires not only a degree of graduation with minimum 50% of marks but also a qualification of B.Ed. in addition to passing in the Teachers Eligibility Test. 7. Thus, when the advertisement was issued on 15.8.2012 inviting applications from the eligible candidates till 16.9.2012 which was the last date of filing of application, the person concerned including the petitioner had to fulfil all the qualifications, namely, of being a graduate with 50% and holding the degree of B.Ed. as also passing the Teachers Eligibility Test. Though the petitioner who had filed his application on 28.4.2012, as would be apparent from Annexure 5, for the post of teacher in a High School in Zila Parishad, Vaishali for the subject of Social Science had the requisite qualification of graduation but he had not completed his B.Ed. course. This becomes apparent from his own mark sheet and the certificate of B.Ed. course enclosed with
Decision
the writ petition in Annexures 5 series, wherein it has been shown that the examination for the said B.Ed. course was held in the 5 month of October, 2012 and its result was declared on 15.2.2013. 8. In view of above, this Court will have no difficulty in holding that the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification for the post of teacher as advertised on 15.8.2012. 9. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the terms and conditions of Secondary Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 is wholly misplaced. First of all for the said examination the Booklet was published in the year 2011 and when it had classified the persons eligible for appearing in such Teachers Eligibility Test it had carved out two separate criteria, namely, both trained teacher and untrained could appear in the Eligibility Test. Thus, whatever was said in the Booklet of Teachers Eligibility Test,2011 was not capable of either changing the statutory Rules framed in the year 2006 and amended from time to time laying down the qualification for the post of teacher. In fact the passing of Teachers Eligibility Test was incorporated in 2006 Rules by inserting an amendment on 3.7.2012. 10. Thus from the aforementioned analysis of facts it would become clear that though the petitioner had passed the Secondary Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 on 14.6.2011 but that by itself did not give a licence to the petitioner for being appointed 6 on the post of teacher in a High School, inasmuch as he had to still fulfil the requirement of having graduation degree with 50% marks as also completing the B.Ed. course. In that view of the matter, the terms and conditions of Teachers Eligibility Test could not have governed much less overruled the requirement under the statutory Rules. 11. From the aforementioned analysis of the statutory Rules for appointment on the post of Teachers in Government High Schools, relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow: ^^…i‰ Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksA …ii‰ fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo’ofo|ky; ls fofufnZ"V fo"k; esa …U;wure 50 izfr’kr vad‰ ds lkFk dyk] foKku vFkok okf.kT; esa LukrdksRrj dh fMxzh gksA vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tu tkfr@vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ@fiNM+k oxZ ,oa fodykax ds fy, U;wure fu/kkZfjr vad esa 5 izfr’kr dh NwV nh tk,xhA ijUrq fcgkj enjlk f’k{kk cksMZ }kjk iznRr Qkfty dh fMxzh ,oa dkes’oj flag njHkaxk laLd‘r fo’ofo|ky; }kjk iznRr vkpk;Z dh fMxzh dks LukrdksRrj ds lerqY; ekuk tk;sxkA …iii‰ jk"Vzh; v/;kid f’k{kk ifj"kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf’k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 vFkok vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds ckn jk"Vzh; v/;kid f’k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf’k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 dh fMxzhA …iv‰ fcgkj ljdkj }kjk vk;ksftr ^^f’k{kd ik=rk ijh{kk** esa mRrh.kZA** it would be more than clear that the terms and conditions of the 7 Teachers Eligibility Test could not have governed specific requirement under 2006 Rules. Thus, when in the Booklet/ Bulletin of the Teachers Eligibility Test the qualification for appearing in such test was laid down under Clause 8 of the Bulletin reading as follows: “8- vkosnd dh U;wure vgZrk %& ¼d½ ek/;fed f”k{kd ds fy, vgZrk A (i) Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gks A (ii) fdlh ekU;rk izkIr fo”ofo|ky; ls U;wure 50 izfr”kr vadksa ds lkFk Lukrd dh fMxzh gksa A vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tu tkfr@ vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ@ fiNM+k oxZ@ fiNM+k oxZ ,oa fodykax ds fy, U;wure fu/kkZfjr vad esa 5 izfr”kr dh NqV nh tk,xh A (iii) jk’V~zh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf”k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 vFkok vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus ds ckn jk’V~zh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr izf”k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0 ,M0 dh fMxzh A dsoy fcgkj jkT; ds vH;kfFkZ;ksa ds fy, ek/;fed f”k{kdks a dh U;wure vgrkZ Lukrd ,oa mPprj ek/;fed ds fy, LukrdksRrj gS A ijUrq ,sls vkosnd dks 5 o’kZ ds vUnj ,d o’khZ; Lukrd ¼ch0 ,M0‰ dh ;ksX;rk xzg.k dj ysuh gksxh A l= iwjk dj pqds vFkok ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks pqds mEehnokj Hkh ik=rk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks ldrs gSa A ** that in no view of the matter could have also automatically meant change in the statutory Rules with regard to qualification of 8 Teachers training for the post of teachers in Secondary Schools. That provision made in the Bulletin of the Teachers Eligibility Test allowing the students of Bihar to appear in the eligibility test even without completing the training examination was confined only to the terms and conditions of passing the Teachers Eligibility Test. 12. It is in this background of the terms and conditions of the Teachers Eligibility Test as incorporated in the bulletin that one has to appreciate the import of the order of the Director, Secondary Education, dated 18.4.2013 which for the sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow: ^^i=kad 11@fu-&09@2008…va’k‰ f’k{kk foHkkx iVuk izs"kd jke cq>kou pkS/kjh] funs’kd …ek/;fed f’k{kk‰ lsok esa] ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh lkj.kA iVuk] fnukad 18 viz sy] 2013 fo"k;& izf’k{k.k ds ’kSf{kd l= ds laca/k esA izlax& ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ds i=kad 235 fnukad 14-02-2013 egk’k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd ;ksX; f’k{kdksa ds p;u izfdz;k ds dze esa fcgkj ek/;fed@mPp ek/;fed ds f’k{kd ds ik=rk ijh{kk 2011 ds fy;s izdkf’kr lwpuk cqysfVu esa ;g funsf’kr Fkk fd oSls vH;FkhZ ftudk ch0,M0 dk ’kSf{kd l= iwjk dj pqds vFkok ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks pqds mEehnokj dh ik=rk ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gks ldrs gSA 9 mi;qZDr vk’k; ls Li"V gS fd oSls vH;FkhZ ftudk ch0,M0 dk ’kSf{kd l= 2010&11 Fkk] vkosnu nsus dh frfFk rd mRrhZ.krk dh fLFkfr esa gh izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ dh Js.kh esa jgsaxsA vr% funs’kkuqlkj ’kSf{kd l= 2010&11 ds izf’kf{kr mRrh.kZ vH;FkhZ gh izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ ds Js.kh esa jgsaxsA fo’oklHkktu g0@& 18-4-13 …jke cq>kou pkS/kjh‰ funs’kd …ek/;fed f’k{kk‰ Kkikad 11@fu1&09@2008…va’k‰ 647 iVuk fnukad 18 vizsy 2013 izfrfyfi& lHkh {ks=h; f’k{kk mi funs’kd@lHkh ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dk;kZFkZ izf"krA g0@& 18-4-13 funs’kd …ek/;fed f’k{kk‰** 13. From a bare perusal of the aforementioned clarificatory letter of the Director, Secondary Education, it would be more than clear that there was a clear stipulation of declaration of result of the Teachers Eligibility Test in two parts, namely, trained teachers and untrained teachers. It is true that under the provisions made for Teachers Eligibility Test even an untrained teacher could appear in such Teachers Eligibility Test and having passed the test could file an application for a post for which there was a provision of appointment of even an untrained teacher. In such case a candidate having passed the Teachers Eligibility Test and if so appointed on the post of untrained had the option of passing the Teachers Training course within a period of five years. This condition in fact was sought to be clarified by the letter dated 10 18.4.2013 on an reference made by the District Education Officer, Saran by classifying that since the advertisement for holding the Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 was issued in the month of September, 2011 and actually the examination was held in the month of November, 2011, the meaning of the word trained teachers would remain confined to those students who had completed their training session upto 2010-11 Session. In other words, such of the candidates, who had either appeared in the Teachers Eligibility Test held in the month of November, 2011 who had completed their teachers training course in or after the academic session of 2011 were not to be treated as a trained candidate for the purposes of 2011 Teachers Eligibility Test. 14. It is this condition of the Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 as sought to be clarified in the letter dated 18.4.2013 was sought to be clarified by the Director, Secondary Education and made subject matter of the writ petitions filed before this Court including in C.W.J.C.No. 9435/2013. Thus, whatever was said while quashing the aforementioned letter dated 18.4.2013 was exclusively confined to the scope of Teachers Eligibility Test or its result. In fact on the strength of that order the advertisement for appointment on the post of teachers which was issued on 15.8.2012 in terms of the statutory Rules only laying down for 11 appointment of teachers in the Secondary Schools in which one of the three requirement was also that of passing of the Teachers Eligibility Test, could not have as a whole changed the statutory Rules framed in 2006. 15. This would become more clear if the relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 27.05.2013 in CWJC 9435 of 2013 and its analogues cases which reads as follows: “3. These writ petitions have been filed questioning the instructions of the Director, Secondary Education contained in letter no. 647 dated 18.4.2013, Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 9435 of 2013 whereunder instructions have been issued to only consider those applicants who have completed B.Ed. course upto Session 2010-11 or had appeared in the examination. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that aforesaid instructions to only consider those who have completed B.Ed. Session 2010-11 or had appeared in the examination is contrary to the qualification notified in the Information Bulletin, Annexure-2, which provides outer limit of five years to obtain the B.Ed. qualification. 5. I see substance in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners, as it is submitted on their behalf that on the date of application for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, they had already appeared in the B.Ed. examination, 12 which is within outer limit of five years as notified in the Information Bulletin, Annexure-2. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, I have no option, but to quash the instruction dated 18.4.2013, Annexure-1, which is, accordingly, quashed so far it concerns the petitioners. 7. These writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed.” 16. Thus, when the Government came out with the consequential order dated 13.6.2013 it had only sought to clarify the academic session of the Teachers Eligibility Test and this again becomes clear from the relevant portion of the impugned order which is quoted hereinbelow: ^^i=kad 11@fu%&09@2008 …va’k‰ 11 893 f’k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj iVukA izs"kd] vkj0 ch0 pkS/kjh] funs’kd …ek/;fed f’k{kk‰ lsok esa] lHkh uxj vk;qDr …uxj fuxe‰ lHkh eq[; dk;Zikyd vf/kdkjh] …ftyk ifj"kn‰ lHkh dk;Zikyd inkf/kdkjh] …fuxe ifj"kn@uxj iapk;r‰ iVuk] fnukad 13-6-2013 fo"k;& ch0 ,M0 izf’k{k.k ds ’kSf{kd l= ds laca/k esaA izlax& foHkkxh; i=kad 647 fnukad 18-04-13 egk’k;] mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd izlaxk/khu i= }kjk lwfpr fd;k x;k Fkk fd oSls vH;FkhZ ftudk ch0 ,M0 dk ’kSf{kd l= 2010&11 Fkk] vkosnu nsus dh frfFk rd mRrh.kZrk dh fLFkfr esa gh izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ ds Js.kh esa jgsaxsA 13 ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk }kjk ;kfpdk la[;k 9435@2013] 9753@2013] 10017@2013 ,oa 10426@2013 esa fnukad 27-05-13 dks ikfjr U;k;kns’k }kjk izlaxk/khu i= dks jn~n (Quashed) dj nh x;h gSA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; }kjk mDr ikfjr vkns’k ds vuqikyu gsrq funsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd izf’kf{kr mRrh.kZ vH;FkhZ tks fu;kstu gsrq vkosnu nsus dh frfFk rd mRrh.kZ gS dks izf’kf{kr vH;FkhZ ds Js.kh esa j[ksaxsA funs’kkuqlkj bl lanHkZ esa funsf’kr fd;k tkrk gS fd foHkkxh; i=kad 88 fnukad 07-06-2013 }kjk funsf’kr dk;Zdze ds vuqlkj fuEuor fcUnq dk;kZUo;u lqfuf’pr fd;k tk;%& 1- ftl ftys ds fu;kstu bdkbZ esa fu;kstu dh izfdz;k laEiUu ugha dh x;h gS] os mi;qZDr funs’k dk vuqikyu lqfuf’pr dj fu;kstu dh izfdz;k f}rh; dze es vUrxZr fufnZ"V frfFk dks vfuok;Z :i ls lEiUu djsaxsA 2- izlaxk/khu i= ds vkyksd esa ftu vH;fFkZ;ksa dk vafre p;u lwph ls gVk fn;k x;k gS ;k fu;kstu i= fuxZr ugha fd;k x;k gS] mUgsa p;u lwph esa ;FkkLFkku j[krs gq, f}rh; dze ds vUrxZr fufnZ"V frfFk dks vfuok;Z :i ls budk p;u lqfuf’pr fd;k tk;sxkA ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j ;kfpdk la[;k 7135] 5742] 7181@2013 esa fnukad 22-04-13 dks ikfjr U;k;kns’k tks tEew dk’ehj ds ’kSf{kd laLFku ls iznRr ch0 ,M0 fMxzh ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds in dks lqjf{kr j[kus ds laca/k esa vko’;d funsZ’k foHkkxh; i=kad 875 fnukad 07-0613 }kjk fn;k x;k gSA ;kfpdkdRrkZ ds vH;fFkZ;ksa ds fy, Hkh in lqjf{kr j[kk tk;A fo’oklHkktu g0@& …vkj0 ch0 pkS/kjh‰ funs’kd …ek/;fed f’k{kk‰ Kkikad&11@fu&09@2008 …ava’k‰AA 893 iVuk] fnukad 13-6-2013 17. In this background the reliance placed on the 14 aforesaid order of this Court dated 27.5.2013 is also wholly misplaced. The subject matter of C.W.J.C.No. 9435/2013 and its analogous cases as noted above was a clarificatory letter dated 18.4.2013 wherein certain conditions of Teachers Eligibility Test were sought to be clarified to the District Education Officer, Saran who had made a query by his letter dated 14.2.2013. In the said letter dated 18.4.2013 it was clearly mentioned that in the Bulletin/ Booklet of the Teachers Eligibility Test, 2011 there was a provision that the candidates who had completed the academic session of their B.Ed. course or had appeared in the examination could also appear in the Teachers Eligibility Test. It was in relation to this condition of Teachers Eligibility Test that the Director, Secondary Education, had stated that since the said Bulletin was published in the month of September, 2011 the candidates, who had already passed their B.Ed. examination upto 2010-11 Session, were to be treated as trained candidates. This Court fails to understand as to how this letter dated 18.4.2013 or its being quashed by this Court would in any way affect the statutory Rules laying down the qualification for the post of Secondary School Teachers. In any event this Court having quashed the letter dated 18.4.2013 did not issue a direction for appointment of any teacher in a High School without having the 15 qualification of B.Ed.. It is in this background that one has to appreciate the subsequent letter dated 13.06.2013 issued by the Director, Secondary Education, which also more or less by way of implementation of the order of this Court dated 27.5.2013. 18. Viewed from this angle it would be absolutely clear that the impugned order dated 13.6.2013 in no view of the matter can be used by the petitioner for his consideration of his case for appointment on the post of a Secondary School teacher in Hajipur Zila Parishad as against the advertisement dated 15.8.2012 specially when the order dated 13.6.2013 assailed in this writ application again talks only of academic session of B.Ed. course in relation to Teachers Eligibility Test. It again very clearly says that in compliance of the order of this Court only such teachers shall be eligible to be treated as a trained teacher who till the date of filing of the application had acquired the qualification of training. As on 13.6.2013 when this letter was issued the first phase of appointment on the post of teachers had already been completed as per the advertisement and schedule published by the Government on 15.8.2012 wherein the appointment letters were to be issued by the Zila Parishad by 8.12.2012 and which was subsequently extended to 28.1.2013 as would be apparent from Annexure 4 to this writ application. In view of above, this Court would hold the 16 whole challenge of the petitioner to the aforementioned order dated 13.6.2013 is wholly misconceived both on fact and in law. 19. As a matter of fact if the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted that by itself would create a class among class, inasmuch as even though the petitioner was not qualified in terms of the advertisement by not passing the B.Ed. examination till the last date of filing of the application as prescribed in the advertisement i.e. 16.9.2012 he would still claim the benefit of a trained teacher for seeking appointment in Hajipur Zila Parishad. It is not that the petitioner wants himself to be considered as an untrained teacher on the basis of his passing Teachers Eligibility Test as an untrained teacher. In fact the petitioner wants that his qualification of teachers training for which his B.Ed. result was published in the month of February, 2013 should allow him to be included amongst trained teachers as per the advertisement. That if allowed would again create a discrimination to all those undergoing teachers training course in Session of the year 2011 or thereafter who in terms of the advertisement and the Rules did not stake their claim for appointment as a trained teacher. 20. The plea of the petitioner that he has passed his Teachers Eligibility Test on 14.6.2012 and his training 17 examination in the month of February, 2013 would qualify him only for the next advertisement as selection but he cannot claim any benefit for the present selection and advertisement for which he did not possess the requisite qualification of being trained till the last date of filing of the application. 21. Considering all these aspects, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J.) Patna High Court, The 05th August, 2013, AAhmad/ (AFR)