The High Court
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S). No. 2270 of 2024 ---------- Vimala Kumari, wife of Birendra Prajapati, resident of Village-Kelhwa, P.O. Ambabar, P.S. Panki, Dist. Palamu (Jharkhand). ……….. Petitioner Versus 1. State of Jharkhand through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi. 2. Secretary, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi. 3. Director, Directorate of Secondary Education, Department of School Education and Literacy, Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. Dhurwa, P.S. Jagarnathpur, Dist. Ranchi. 4. Deputy Commissioner, Giridih, Collectorate Office, Giridih, P.O.+P.S. Giridih, Dist. Giridih, Jharkhand. 5. District Education Officer, Giridih, Collectorate Office, Giridih, P.O.+P.S. Giridih, Dist. Giridih, Jharkhand. ………. Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S.N.PATHAK ---------- For the Petitioner For the Respondents
Legal Reasoning
06/ 23.10.2024 Heard the parties. ----------- : : ----------
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Amritansh Vats, Advocate Mr. Arun Kr. Dubey, AC to GP-III 2. Petitioner has approached this Court for direction upon the respondent No. 5 to permit the petitioner to perform her duties to the post of Trained Graduate Teacher at +2 High School Kumharlalo Pirtand, Giridih since she has been restrained from marking her attendance and not to participate in any activities in the School vide letter No. 2723 dated 28.11.2023 and thereafter vide letter No. 2826 dated 12.12.2023, the petitioner has been directed to submit the document, which proves that she has completed her B.Ed. from recognized a University by 20.12.2023 failing which her services will be terminated. Petitioner has further prayed for quashing of the part of letter dated 12.12.2023 as contained in memo No. 2826 as well as letter dated 1 28.11.2023, whereby, the petitioner has been given last opportunity to produce proof/ evidence regarding recognition status of her institution from where she has obtained the B.Ed. qualification on or before 20.12.2023. 3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the petitioner being eligible in terms of Advertisement has filled-up application form for consideration of her candidature for the post of T.G.T. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in the examination conducted for compulsory paper as well as main paper in the month of November, 2017. After being qualified in the said examination, the petitioner was called for document verification by the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission in which the petitioner appeared and submitted the desired documents. Thereafter, the JSSC published the final merit list in which name of the petitioner also figured and she was recommended for appointment. Accordingly, the petitioner submitted her joining in the +2 Senior Secondary High School, Kumharlalo Pirtand, Giridih as Graduate Trained Teacher for Hindi Subject on 22.05.2023. 4. Thereafter, vide letter dated 28.11.2023, issued by the District Education Officer, Giridih, the petitioner was asked to provide proof/ evidence whether the Indian Council of Education, Uttar Pradesh which issued the B.Ed. degree and training certificate to the petitioner is recognized by NCTE or not, since the certificate produced by her seems to be doubtful. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show-cause notice vide representation dated 02.12.2023 and 19.12.2023 wherein the petitioner has stated that her certificate of Teacher Training is issued from the recognize institution i.e. Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Uttar Pradesh as per her information. After reply of the aforesaid letter, the petitioner was served with another letter dated 12.12.2023, whereby petitioner has been given last opportunity to produce proof/ evidence regarding the recognition status of Indian Council of Education, Uttar Pradesh. Since the issuance of show- cause notice dated 28.11.2023 the petitioner was not allowed to mark her attendance nor she was allowed to participate in any activities in the School. The salary of the petitioner is not being released from the date of issuance 2 of show-cause notice dated 28.11.2023, since she was not allowed to perform her duties thereafter. Hence, she has filed the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Amritansh Vats, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner assiduously argues that action of the respondents is illegal, arbitrary and unjustified in view of the fact that there cannot be two parameters for deciding the same and similar set of issues inasmuch as in similar type of situation, persons who have obtained their degree from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Prayagraj, Prayag; Mahila Vidyapeet, Allahabad; Gurukul Vishwavidyalaya, Mathura; and Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, initially their services have been terminated but later on, they were reinstated into service which is evident from perusal of office order dated 16.11.2023, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Giridih. Learned counsel further argues that from perusal of office order dated 16.11.2023, it is crystal clear that the para teachers who were also reinstated back in the service have obtained their Teachers’ Training from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow from where the petitioner has also obtained her B.Ed. degree and training certificate but even though the petitioner is not allowed to discharge her duties. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the advertisement it has been specifically mentioned that candidate must have obtained B.Ed. Degree from Institute recognized by NCTE, which came in existence in the year 1995 and if the B.Ed. degree was obtained by any candidate prior to that, then the Institution should be recognized by the concerned State Government or the University Grants Commission. Hence, the claim of the petitioner cannot be considered because the petitioner has cleared her B.Ed. Examination from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh and this Institution was never recognized by National Council for Teachers Education and hence, as per National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, this petitioner is not qualified to be appointed as a Teacher for imparting education in a School. Hence, no illegality has been 3 committed by the respondents. Learned counsel further argues that in similar circumstances, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court vide order dated 18.07.2017 passed in LPA No. 406 of 2016 has dismissed the Appeal preferred by the petitioner and affirmed the order passed by the learned Single Judge and as such, this writ petition may also be dismissed in terms of order passed in the said case. 7. Heard the parties. 8. Admittedly, the petitioner has obtained Teachers Training from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh, which is not recognized by National Council for Teachers Education and hence, as per National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, rightly, the petitioner was not allowed to discharge her duties. No appointment can be made dehors the rules. 9. Further, in similar circumstances in LPA No. 406 of 2016 (Rishi Kant Sinha Vs. the State of Jharkhand & Ors.), disposed of on 18.07.2017, the Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court denied to give any relief to the petitioner of the said case and dismissed the Appeal preferred by him holding therein as under: “5. Having heard learned counsel for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that this appellant (original petitioner) has cleared his B.Ed. Examination from Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh in the year, 2006. This institution was never recognized by National Council for Teachers Education and hence, as per National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993, this appellant was not qualified to be appointed as a Teacher for imparting education in a school and hence, no illegality has been committed by the respondent- Government in rejecting the representation of this appellant vide order dated 12th March, 2014 and no error has been committed by the learned Single Judge while passing the judgment and order dated 3rd August, 2016 in W.P.(S) No.5613 of 2014.” 10. Since the similar issue has already been decided by this Court, this Court takes no other view than what has been decided in LPA No. 406 of 2016. 4
Decision
11. Accordingly, the writ petition merits dismissal and the same is hereby dismissed. 12. Before parting with the order, this Court directs the respondents to take action against the persons who were appointed and are working as on date on the basis of degree which is not recognized by National Council for Teachers Education and terminate them from services. Let the entire exercise be completed within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. (Dr. S.N. Pathak, J.) Adiit/ K 5