The writ petition challenging an appointment order was disposed of. The court held that setting aside the order based on jurisdiction was irrelevant as it might revive an illegal appointment founded on unrecognized qualifications. The jurisdictional issue and validity of the appointment were left open.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Patna High Court CWJC No.11151 of 2012 (2) dt.04-07-2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11151 of 2012
======================================================
.... .... Petitioner Versus
.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Alok Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. S.A. Alam SC-3 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 04-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State.
The primary thrust of the argument on behalf of the petitioner was that after the constitution of the District Teachers Appellate Authority, the District Education Officer had no jurisdiction to pass the order dated 01.06.2012. If the respondent no. 5 was aggrieved by her appointment appropriate remedy was to move the Tribunal. It is submitted that the order is therefore without jurisdiction.
Counsel for the State submits that the appointment
Patna High Court CWJC No.11151 of 2012 (2) dt.04-07-2012
of the petitioner was based on educational qualifications obtained from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag at Allahabad held to be an unrecognized Institution in (2010) 12 SCC 609.
In the facts of the present case where the educational qualification of the petitioner was from an unrecognized Institution, the question of lack of jurisdiction becomes irrelevant as the Court shall not set aside an order if it may result in the revive of an illegal appointment.
The question whether the District Education Officer could have passed the order or not and whether the jurisdiction lay with the appellate Tribunal alone is left open for consideration in an appropriate case.
In view of the fact that the educational qualification of the petitioner has been found to be unrecognized, the submission of the petitioner that the appointment was valid when made is left open for the respondents to consider if the petitioner represents for salary with regard to the period that she claims to have discharged duties.
The writ application stands disposed.
(Navin Sinha, J.)
Md. Ibrarul/-
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the District Education Officer had jurisdiction to pass the order of appointment when the petitioner's qualification was from an unrecognized institution.
Whether the petitioner can claim salary for the period she discharged duties given her qualifications were found unrecognized.
Whether the order should be set aside to revive an illegal appointment.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag caseReferred¶13
(2010) 12 SCC 609 · Who else cites this
Rintu Kumari @ Rintu Devi
The State Of Bihar
Nagendra Singh
Navin Sinha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
