Remanded

Pritam Kumari @ Priyatam Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC20 Jul 2012CWJC/12548/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged dismissal of her application regarding recognition of her qualification for employment. Court refused to remand to Tribunal due to issues being with acquittal of educational qualification obtained from private institution. Matter referred to State Government for appropriate decision within three months.

What did the court decide?

Matter referred to the State Government to decide on the petitioner's qualification and consequential claims within three months.

Pritam Kumari @ Priyatam Kumari Vs the State… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.12548 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Pritam Kumari @ Priyatam Kumari D/O Sri Ramyatar Prasad, W/O Sri Shasi Bhushan Kumar Resident Of Mohalla - Hasanganj, Sheikhpura, P.S. + District - Sheikhpura

¶3

.... .... Petitioner/s

¶4

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

¶5

The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna

¶6

The District Education Officer, Sheikhpura

¶7

The Member Of The District Teachers Employment Appellate Authority, Sheikhpura

¶8

The Block Education Officer, Ariyari, P.S. - Ariyari, District - Sheikhpura

¶9

The Panchayat Secretary Of The Gram Panchayat, Hajratpur Mararo, P.S. Ariyari, District - Sheikhpura 7. Mr. Lalan Prasad Singh Son Of Late Saheb Singh Resident Of Village + P.O. - Karaki, P.S. Ariyari, District - Sheikhpura

¶10

.... .... Respondent/s

¶11

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Nawal Kishor Singh For the Respondent/s : Mr. Neeraj Nandan Gp20

¶12

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER

¶13

2 20-07-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the

¶14

State.

¶15

The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 3.3.2012 passed by the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.13/11. It holds her qualification from the Central Board of Higher Education to be unrecognized by the State Government for appointment.

¶16

Learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon a letter no.432/90 dated 8.9.1990 issued by the Human Resources Department, Government of India to the Regional

¶17

Patna High Court CWJC No.12548 of 2012 (2) dt.20-07-2012

¶18

¶19

Deputy Director, Bhagalpur Division at Bhagalpur informing that the qualification granted by the Central Board of Higher Education was equivalent to Matric and Intermediate and that it was an institution recognized by the Government of India. He next refers to another order dated 10.1.1994 issued by the Deputy Director (Higher Education), Government of Bihar stating that in view of the orders of the Government of India referred to therein there was no need for any separate order to be issued by the State of Bihar granting recognition to the institution. Even while the aforesaid materials are relied upon to assail the order of the Tribunal, it is fairly acknowledged that these materials were not placed before the Tribunal which therefore had no occasion to apply its mind.

¶20

The failure of the petitioner to place those materials before the Tribunal and then requiring the Court to strike down the order on a ground not urged before the Tribunal was sufficient to dismiss the application. But, on consideration of the matter, more particularly the documents that have been placed before the Court, it is satisfied that justice shall be a casualty if the writ petition is dismissed on technicality.

¶21

Considering the question involved the Court is further satisfied that it shall not be prudent to remand matters to the Tribunal. Since the issue involved appears to

¶22

Patna High Court CWJC No.12548 of 2012 (2) dt.20-07-2012

¶23

¶24

be with regard to acceptability of educational qualification obtained from a private institution and the petitioner relies on orders issued by the State Government, the matter is referred to the State Government itself for an appropriate decision in accordance with law. Needless to state that if what the petitioner contends be correct and it holds the field till today, it shall necessarily have to be the subject of consideration and dealt with in any common order that the State Government shall pass.

¶25

The consequent claims of the petitioner, whether with regard to continuity and/or salary shall remain dependent on such decision that the respondents shall take.

¶26

Apparently the issue may have wider implications than the petitioner alone.

¶27

Let such consideration be done and final appropriate orders passed by the State Government within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt/presentation of a copy of this order.

¶28

The application stands disposed.

¶29

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶30

K.C.jha/-

Pritam Kumari @ Priyatam Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pritam Kumari @ Priyatam Kumari 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jagannath Prasad Sinha Vs B.r.a. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur and Ors.

Akbar Ali Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Surendra Kumar Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Sri Harendra Singh Vs The Rajendra Agricultural University and Ors.

Premchandra Singh and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Rajesh Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar And Others