Disposed

Yogendra Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC13 Jul 2012CWJC/11935/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge disposed four writ petitions challenging rejection of appointment. Court directed respondents to consider claims based on training prior to N.C.T.E. Act and pass reasoned orders on reinstatement within two months.

What did the court decide?

Directions to respondents to consider claims on termination in light of prior precedent and pass reasoned order on reinstatement.

Yogendra Kumar Das Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11749 of 2012

¶2

======================================================

¶3

Sangeeta Kumari D/O Shri Bhagwat Pd. Mandal R/O Village- Rahua, P.O.- Sabaila, P.S.- Saur Bazar, District- Saharsa

¶4

.... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Education Department, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Education Officer, Purnia, District- Purnia 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Amour, District- Purnia 7. The Head Master, Middle School, Kochka, Amour Block, DistrictMadhepura

¶5

.... .... Respondent/s

¶6

======================================================

¶7

with

¶8

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11935 of 2012

¶9

====================================================== 1. Yogendra Kumar Das S/O Parmeshwari Das Resident Of Village- Rajni (Pokhar), P.O- Rajni Goth, P.S- Murliganj, District- Madhepura

¶10

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶11

Versus

¶12

The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Education Department, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 2. The Principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Education Department Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 4. The Director Primary Education Govt. Of Bihari, Patna. 5. The District Education Officer, Madhepura, District- Madhepura. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Murliganj Block DistrictMaghepura.

¶13

.... .... Respondent/s

¶14

======================================================

¶15

with

¶16

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12012 of 2012

¶17

====================================================== 1. Md.Moin Uddin S/O Md. Jahir Uddin Resident Of Village Reshma, P.O. Ararghat, P.S. Gwalpara, District Madhepura.

¶18

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶19

Versus

¶20

The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Education

¶21

Patna High Court CWJC No.11749 of 2012 (2) dt.24-07-2012

¶22

¶23

Department Vikash Bhawan, Patna.

¶24

The Principal Secretary, Education Department Govt. Of Bihar Vikash Bhawan, Patna. 3. The Joint Secretary, Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna.

¶25

The Director Primary Education Govt. Of Biahr, Patna.

¶26

The District Education Officer, Madhepura, District Madhepura. 6. The Block Education Extension Officer, Madepurablock, District Madhepura.

¶27

The Head Master, Up-Graded Middle School, Chakla, Madhepura. .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== with Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.11751 of 2012

¶28

.... .... Respondent/s

¶29

====================================================== 1. Satrughan Prasad Yadav S/O Mahendra Prasad Yadav R/O VillageHaripur, Manhara, P.O.,P.S.- Murliganj, District- Madhepura

¶30

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶31

Versus

¶32

1. The State Of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna

¶33

The Principal Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 3. The Joint Secretary Education Department, Govt. Of Bihar, Vikash Bhawan, Patna 4. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. Of Bihar, Patna 5. The District Education Officer, Madhepura, District- Madhepura 6. The Block Education Extension Officer Kumarkhand, Block + DistrictMadhepura 7. The Head Master, Up-Graded Middle School, Karuwaili, Kumarkhand Block, District- Madhepura

¶34

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : (In CWJC No.11749 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. G.K. Agrawal Ga10 (In CWJC No.11935 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rakesh Kr Samrendra Sc21 (In CWJC No.12012 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Awdhesh Kumar Pandey Ga9 (In CWJC No.11751 of 2012) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Shankar Kumar For the Respondent/s : Mr. Harendra Pd. Singh Ga8 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶35

Patna High Court CWJC No.11749 of 2012 (2) dt.24-07-2012

¶36

¶37

2 24-07-2012

¶38

Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.

¶39

The petitioners are aggrieved by the separate orders dated 30.5.2012, 6.6.2012, 6.6.2012 and 6.6.2012 respectively holding them to be ineligible for appointment notwithstanding the fact that their names were within the list of 34,540 persons approved by the Supreme Court for appointment on the post of Assistant Teachers.

¶40

The ground is that the training qualification in the Baby Teachers’ Training course from Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh was not valid.

¶41

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had obtained their training qualification from the aforesaid institution in 1987 prior to coming into force of N.C.T.E. Act in 1995.

¶42

Learned counsel for the State rightly submits that this being a foundational fact, not specifically asserted in the writ petitions, has to be left open for consideration by the respondents subject to the petitioners producing proof in support thereof.

¶43

Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon an order in C.W.J.C. No.4802/09, 4803/09 dated 16.4.2009 noticing the facts with regard to the same training qualification obtained from the same institution and prior to coming into force of the N.C.T.E. Act vis-à-vis the

¶44

Patna High Court CWJC No.11749 of 2012 (2) dt.24-07-2012

¶45

¶46

Appointment Rules.

¶47

The present order has to be restricted in its construction only to those who claim to have acquired the training qualification pre N.C.T.E. and not post N.C.T.E.

¶48

Except for the aforesaid the issues appear covered by (2010) 4 P.L.J.R. 318 (D.B.).

¶49

The writ applications are therefore disposed in similar manner, with like directions for the respondents to consider in like manner for reasons as discussed therein and pass an appropriate reasoned and speaking order on the issue of the petitioners’ termination preferably within a maximum period of two months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶50

If the respondents find justification in the claim or in any part of the claim, they are necessarily required to pass appropriate orders on all consequential aspects of service from the date of appointment till reinstatement.

¶51

The writ applications are disposed.

¶52

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶53

K.C.jha/-

Yogendra Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Kumar Das v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandan Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Anr.

Ravi Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Shyam Krishna Singh Vs L. N. Mithila Univ. and Ors.

Md.Kalamuddin Ansari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Fakir Chand Ram and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Girindra Mohan Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.