Patna High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.22244 of 2013 ====================================================== Om Prakash Prasad Son Of Late Dayanand Prasad Resident Of Village - Telia Mai, P.S. - Ekangarsarai, District - Nalanda .... .... Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Chief Secretary, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 2. Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 3. Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna 4. District Magistrate, Nalanda 5. District Education Officer, Nalanda At Biharsharif 6. District Programme Officer, Nalanda At Biharsharif 7. Block Education Officer, Hilsa, Nalanda 8. The Head Master, Middle School, Mirchiganj, Sakroudha, Nalanda .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Pramod Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. P.K. Verma ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 28-11-2013 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The petitioner in this writ application has assailed an order dated 2.9.2013 whereby and whereunder his services have been terminated on the ground that his degree of Diploma in teaching of one year was not in terms of Advertisement No. 210/2010 whereby and whereunder 34540 were sought to be appointed under the supervision of the Apex Court. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that once appointment of the petitioner was made in view of merit list prepared under the supervision of the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court had passed an order on 18.7.2013 that the
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.22244 of 2013 (2) dt.28-11-2013 2 appointments made shall not be disturbed, the petitioner’s appointment could not have been cancelled. He has further submitted that many others like the petitioner having one year Diploma training course are still continuing in the lot of 34540 teachers. Finally, he has drawn attention of this Court that the directions issued by the Director, Primary Education for removing the person having one year Diploma course is contrary to the spirit of the order of the Apex Court dated 18.7.2013. In the considered opinion of this Court all these arguments have to be noted only for its being rejected. First of all the qualification for the post of Teacher under Advertisement No. 210/2010 was specifically prescribed in the advertisement after framing of special Rules. The Rules or advertisement never contemplated appointment of a teacher having undergone one year Diploma training course. That is how if the name of the petitioner got included in the list of teachers prepared under the supervision of the Supreme Court a provision was made in the appointment letter itself that upon joining of the person concerned including the petitioner his or her educational and training certificate would be verified and in case the same is not found to be in order the appointment shall be cancelled. Annexure 2, the appointment letter of the petitioner dated Patna High Court CWJC No.22244 of 2013 (2) dt.28-11-2013 3 14.2.2012 also contained the said clause 7 and 8 which reads as follows: ^^7- izek.k i=ksa ds tkap ds mijkUr izek.k i= QthZ@xyr ik;s tkus ij fu;qfDr jn~n djrs gq, Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf’k dh ,d eqLr olwyh dh tk,xh ,oa dkuwuh dkjZokbZ Hkh dh tk,xhA 8- tkap ds nkSjku laLFkk ds vekU; ik;s tkus vFkok laLFkk }kjk fuxZr izek.k ij dh ekU;rk ugha gksus vFkok izek.k i=ksa ds QthZ gksus dh fLFkfr esa fu;qfDr dks jn~n dj fn;k tk;sxk ,oa vU; dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA** The petitioner, however, has deliberately not produced such order of appointment which contained the clause of automatic removal from the service in the event of educational or training qualification certificate to be found to be contrary to the requirement laid down in the advertisement. As a matter of fact after the said anomaly in the selection and appointment of the petitioner on the basis of his one year training course was detected the petitioner was given a show cause notice on 8.5.2013, as contained in Annexure 3, and the petitioner also had filed his reply on 11.6.2013, as contained in Annexure 4, whereafter the impugned order dated 2.9.2013 reading as follows: ^^dk;kZy; vkns’k ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k ds vkyksd esa deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx fcgkj iVuk }kjk vuq’kaflr 34540 f’k{kdkas dh lwph ds varxZr lkekU; vH;FkhZ ds :i esa ukyank ftyk ds fy, vkoafVr ftyk dzekad 257 esa vafdr jh vkse izdk’k izlkn firk Jh n;kuUn izlkn dh fu;qfDr lkekU; f’k{kd ds :i esa e/; fo|ky; fejpkbZxat ldjkS<+k] Patna High Court CWJC No.22244 of 2013 (2) dt.28-11-2013 4 iz[kaM&uwjljk; ftyk ukyank esa bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 639 fnukad 14- 02-2012 ds }kjk dh x;h FkhA deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx fcgkj iVuk ls izkIr ,oa dkWlsfyax ds nkSjku jh vkse izdk’k izlkn ds }kjk fn, x, ’kS{kf.kd @iz’kS{kf.kd izek.k i= ls Li"V gksrk gS fd bUgksaus rqjdh f’k{kd Vzsfuax dkWyst eqTtQjiqj ls fMIyksek bu Vhafpax dh ijh{kk o"kZ 1981 esa mRrhZ.k gS] tks ,d o"khZ; lsok dkyhu ikB~;dze gSA funs’kd …izk0 f’k0‰ fcgkj iVuk ds i=kad 7@fo0&1&61@09&va’k 1&99 fnukad 02-02-2012 }kjk ikIr ekxZn’kZu esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd ,d o"khZ; lsok dkyhu izf’k{k.k ds vk/kkj ij f’k{kd ds in ij fu;qfDr ugha dh tk ldrh gSA mi;qZDr ifjis{; esa bl dk;kZy; ds i=kad 2557 fnukad 08- 05-2013 }kjk viuk i{k j[kus gsrq Li"Vhdj.k dh ekax dh x;h FkhA Jh izlkn ds }kjk fnukad 11-06-2013 dks viuk Li"Vhdj.k lefiZr fd;k x;kA lefiZr Li"Vhdj.k esa buds }kjk Lohdkj fd;k x;k gS fd buds }kjk ,d o"khZ; lsok dkyhu izf’k{k.k izkIr fd;k gwWA vr% mi;qZDr rF;ksa ds vkyksd esa Jh vkse izdk’k izlkn] firk&Jh n;kuUn izlkn] ftyk dzekad 257 ds bl dk;kZy; ds Kkikad 639 fnukad 14-02-2012 ds }kjk fuxZr fu;qfDr vkns’k dks jn~n fd;k tkrk gS ,oa budh lsok lekIr dh tkrh gSA g0@& g0@& ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ftyk f’k{kk inkf/kdkjh …LFkkiuk‰] ukyank ukyankA Kkikad 5933 fcgkj’kjhQ] fnukad 02-09-13** has been passed. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have no power to terminate the services of the petitioner once he was appointed in view of the merit list under the supervision of the Apex Court will Patna High Court CWJC No.22244 of 2013 (2) dt.28-11-2013 5 automatically loose its significance in terms of the specific conditions imposed in the order of appointment. That apart the order dated 18.7.2013 passed by the Apex Court in the case of Yashwant Singh, as contained in Annexure 6, has to be appreciated in the backdrop and background in which the order came to be passed. As a matter of fact the Supreme Court while disposing of the matter and directing the State of Bihar to fill up the remaining 2413 posts of the lot of 34540 posts had made it clear that while selecting and appointing rest of the candidates on any ground whatsoever it will not lead to cancellation of appointment already made. That order never meant even a person was disqualified or was not possessing the requisite qualification, even then such appointment could not have been interfered. As a matter of fact the preparation of merit list and offering of appointment letter on the basis of such merit list itself had contemplated verification of the certificates and its being tested in terms of the requirement laid down in the Rules and advertisement. As with regard to plea of discrimination, one has to only notice the statement made in paragraph no.14 as referred to by the
Legal Reasoning
learned counsel for the petitioner. In paragraph 14 not name of not even a single person has been given but according to the learned Patna High Court CWJC No.22244 of 2013 (2) dt.28-11-2013 6 counsel for the petitioner a number of such persons are still continuing on the basis of one year Diploma teachers training course. Such statement being wholly vague and unspecific is not capable of being verified and thus even the plea of discrimination cannot be entertained. Thus, for the reasons indicated above, this Court does not find any merit in this application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) surendra/-