Biddupur v. District
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17230 of 2012 ====================================================== Dropadi Devi W/O Sri Chulhai Prasad Resident Of Village, P.O. And P.S.- Panapur Dharampur, District Vaishali .... .... Petitioner 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The District Education Officer, Vaishali 3. The Block Development Officer, Biddupur, P.O. + P.S.- Biddupur, Versus District- Vaishali 4. The Block Education Officer, Biddupur, P.O. + P.S.- Biddupur, District- Vaishali .... .... Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Bipin Bihari Singh, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Sanat Kumar Mishra, AC to AAG-8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL JUDGEMENT (Date - 04-07-2013) Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The prayer of the petitioner in this writ application reads as follows: “For quashing the order as contained in Memo No.01 Biddupur dated 15.2.2012 issued under the authority of Block Development Officer, Biddupur by cancelling the appointment of the petitioner referring the different letters issued by the authorities by holding that the degree provided by Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad is knot a recognized degree by the department by ignoring the facts that she was one of the petitioner in C.W.J.c.No. 7454/1991 decided on 4.12.1991 by the Division Bench of the Hon’ble High Court holding the said degree of Prathama is the equivalent to the Matriculation as well as there is none compliance of the requirement to the natural justice.”
Legal Reasoning
Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 2
Legal Reasoning
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of the aforementioned prayer has submitted that once the petitioner was appointed on the post of Panchayat Teacher by an order dated 17.1.2007, her appointment could not have been cancelled by the respondents under the order dated 15.2.2012 on the ground that the educational qualification of the petitioner acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was invalid and not recognized by the Government. In this regard reliance has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on an order of the Division Bench dated 4.12.1991 in C.W.J.C.No. 7454/1991 (Pratibha Roshan & ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors.) to contend that this Court itself had held the qualification acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad to be a valid qualification and equivalent to Matriculation. Learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to certain other unreported judgments which shall be taken note of at the relevant place in this order. 4. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, having filed the counter affidavit has submitted that the issue relating to qualification of Prathama for the purposes of employment on the post of Panchayat Teacher has been gone into at length in the Division Bench Judgment in the case of State of Bihar & ors. vs. Mamta Kumari & ors., reported in 2010(4) PLJR 318, wherein it has been held that the qualification acquired from Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 3 Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad either of Prathama or Madhyama (Visharad) allegedly being equivalent to Matriculation/ Intermediate were not to be recognized in terms of the qualification laid down for the post of Panchayat Teacher/ Prakhand Teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules, 2006. It has also been stated that the plea of equivalence of the qualification of Prathama acquired from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was never extended by the State of Bihar and therefore, the order of the Division Bench relied by the petitioner in the case of Pratibha Roshan (supra) will have no application to the facts of the present case. 5. In the light of the aforementioned submissions the first and foremost question and in fact the solitary question would be as to whether the petitioner possesses the requisite qualification for the post of Panchayat Teacher under the Bihar Panchayat Prarambhik Shikshak (Niyojan Awam Seva Sarta) Niyamawali, 2006 which under Rule 8 clearly lays down that for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher the candidate must have passed the Intermediate/ Higher Secondary or its equivalent examination and to that extent it would be relevant to quote Rule 8 of 2006 Rules which reads as follows: “8- fu;qfDr gsrq %& …d‰ vgZrk % iz[k.M f”k{kd ds fy;s %& Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 4 1- Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksaA 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 ¼ch0,y0,M0½ vFkok ¼ch0,M0½ 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 osSls mEehnokjksa dk Hkh fu;kstu fd;k tk ldsxk] tks ljdkj] }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; ls eSfV“d vFkok led{k ijh{kk m(cid:217)kh.kZ gks rFkk jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn (N.C.T.E.)vf/kfu;e 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 esa oSls mEehnokjksa dk Hkh fu;kstu fd;k tk ldsxs tks ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky; ls eSfV“d vFkok led{k ijh{kk m(cid:217)kh.kZ gks rFkk jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~ (N.C.T.E.) vf/kfu;e 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 ikl gksA” (underlining for emphasis) 6. From a bare reading of the aforesaid Rules it Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 5 becomes very clear that the minimum qualification for appointment of a Panchayat Teacher was Intermediate or its equivalent examination as well as completion of two years teachers training course from a recognized institution by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) or a graduate in the Primary Education (B.L.Ed.). This Court would fail in its duty if he does not take into consideration the proviso to Sub-rule (3) of Rule 8 laying down that in the first phase of employment on the post of Panchayat Teacher even such candidates could be employed who had passed Matriculation examination from the recognized school and also completed two years teachers training course from the recognized Teachers Training School/ College prior to coming into force of NCTE Act. 7. If in this background the case of the petitioner is examined it would be found that the petitioner had passed her Prathama examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and her result was declared only on 19.9.2006 as would be evident from the mark-sheet enclosed with the writ application as Annexure 1. From a similar mark-sheet of the petitioner issued by the Bihar School Examination Board the petitioner is said to have passed the Teachers Training Course examination in the year 1994. Thus, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of Intermediate and her claim to have been appointed Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 6 on the post of Panchayat Teacher as a trained teacher on 17.1.2007 itself cannot have any validity in the eye of law as she did not possess the requisite qualification. 8. It has to be kept in mind that when a similar issue had arisen as with regard to the qualification for the post of Panchayat Teacher in respect of the candidates acquiring qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and the
Decision
learned Single Judge had allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of termination, the issue was examined at length in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra) and it was held that such qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, a voluntary Hindi institution set up for promotion of its Hindi and its examination are not to be equated with regular examination of Secondary Board/ University and in that regard the Division Bench, of which I was also a member, had placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan & ors. vs. Lata Arun, reported in (2002)6 SCC 252. This Court in fact had also carefully gone into the provisions of the Bihar Education Code as also a number of judgments of the learned Single Judge and the Division Bench for recording its finding that the qualification acquired from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was invalid for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher and to that extent it would be relevant to quote paragraphs no. 28 and 29 of the Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 7 judgment: “28. Thus in our considered opinion, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lata Arun (supra) is a complete answer in all respect that examination of Madhyama (Visharad) passed by the writ petitioners from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allhabad by itself cannot be treated to be equivalent of Intermediate examination as prescribed under the Rules specially when its equivalence was never recognized by the State Government of Bihar. 29. Consequently, the termination of appointments obtained by the respondent writ petitioners on the post of Panchayat Shikshak containing a specific Clause in terms of their letters of appointment of such appointment being provisional in nature and capable of being terminated on discovery of its being found to contrary to the Rules cannot be faulted with.” 9. Having thus kept in mind that the issue stands squarely covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Lata Arun (supra) as well as the earlier Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra) which also stands reiterated in the Government decision dated 8.12.2011 pursuant to an order of remand passed by this Court in L.P.A.No. 855/2011 (Anju Kumari & ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors.), wherein the Director, Primary Education by the letter dated 8.12.2011 had held that the qualification of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was not valid for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher. As a Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 8 matter of fact the Director, Primary Education on the basis of judgment of L.P.A.No. 855/2011 in the case of Anju Kumari (supra) had directed for termination of service of Panchayat Teacher who were appointed on the basis of their qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and as a result thereof the termination of service of the petitioner was also made by the impugned order dated 15.2.2012. 10. Thus, in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra) and Anju Kumari (supra) there was no need for me to go into this question again, especially when the issue in hand has also been subsequently gone into by yet another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Poonam Sharma vs. the State of Bihar & ors., reported in 2012(1) PLJR 226, and the Division Bench Judgment in the case of Anju Kumari (supra) placing reliance on another judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti , Sardarshahar & anr. Vs. Union of India & ors., reported in (2010)12 SCC 609, wherein incidentally the learned counsel for the petitioner in this case was also appearing. 11. This Court, however, would fail in its duty if it does not take into notice the Division Bench judgment in the case of Pratibha Roshan (supra) which is clearly distinguishable on facts, inasmuch as that case was in relation to selection for Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 9 admission in Primary Teachers Training College in the Session 1990-92. Thus, whatever was said in relation to denial of admission to the students in the case of Pratibha Roshan (supra) on the basis of their acquiring Prathama qualification from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allhabad cannot be made applicable in the matter of appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher under 2006 Rules. 12. For the same reason the reliance placed on another order of the Division Bench dated 11.3.1999 in C.W.J.C.No. 8654/1991 (Kalpna Sinha & ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors.) will have also no application to the facts of the present case keeping in view that even in the case of Kalpna Sinha (supra) the issue was only in relation to denial of admission of the petitioners therein in the Teachers Training Course on the basis of their Prathama examination from Hindi Sahitya Sammelon, Allahabad in which they had appeared in the year 1987 and the result was declared in the year 1988. As a matter of fact from reading of the orders of the Division Bench in the case of Kalpna Sinha (supra) it would also become clear that the recognition for the purposes of admission in the Teachers Training College was the issue which was decided by the Division Bench of this Court. 13. Here in the present case the petitioner’s qualification even as Prathama on the basis of declaration of her Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 10 result in the year 2006 with her claim of appearing in 1987 examination in no view of the matter can make her case comparable for two reasons. Firstly, because her case is for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher and secondly, unlike in the case of Kalpna Sinha (supra) who had passed her examination in the year 1988 on the basis of their appearing in the examination in the year 1987 she was found only eligible for appointment in the Teachers Training course. Thus, whatever was said in the subsequent order dated 2.7.2008 in C.W.J.C.No. 2130/2008 in the case of Kalpana Sinha vs. the State of Bihar & ors. by placing reliance on the Division Bench judgment in her case in C.W.J.C.No. 8694/1991 disposed of on 11.3.1999 has to be remained confined to the case of Kalpana Sinha only. 14. Finally, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.6.2008 in C.W.J.C.No. 6266/2007 (Poonam Sharma & ors. vs. the State of Bihar & ors.) can also not be treated to be a good law in view of the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Anju Kumari (supra), where subsequent decisions in the case of Rajasthan Pradesh Vaidya Samiti (supra), Mamta Kumari (supra) and Poonam Sharma (supra) have been noted. 15. Infact the order of the Division Bench in the case of State of Bihar & ors. vs. Poonam Sharma & ors., L.P.A.No. Patna High Court CWJC No.17230 of 2012 (3) dt.04-07-2013 11 297/2009, has to be again understood in the context that whatever was said by the Division Bench had got confined to the facts of that case on account of the writ petitioners of that case getting their degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allhabad much before expiry of recognition, i.e. 31.12.1987. Here in the present case the petitioner had acquired her such qualification of Prathama only on 19.9.2006 and in any event was bound by the ratio in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra). 16. Thus, this Court does not find any error in the order of termination of the services of the petitioner in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mamta Kumari (supra). 17. In the result, this application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Patna High Court Dated the 4th July 2013 A.F.R./Rishi/-