Disposed

Ghanshyam Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC16 Aug 2012CWJC/13901/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Single judge oral order on a writ petition challenging rejection of promotion. Court directs respondents to consider petitioner's claims for inclusion in graduate trained scale within six weeks and disposes of the writ application.

What did the court decide?

Respondents directed to decide petitioner's claim for inclusion in graduate trained scale within six weeks from receipt of this order.

Ghanshyam Prasad Singh Vs The State Of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.13901 of 2012 ====================================================== 1. Ghanshyam Prasad Singh Son Of Late Bodh Narayan Singh Resident Of Village - Pendapur, P.S. - Hilsa, District - Nalanda .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. District Education Officer, Nalanda 3. District Programme Officer, Establishment, Nalanda .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Binoy Kumar Singh, Adv. Mr. Ravi Prakash Kumart Bharat, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Ashish Kumar Lal, Adv. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA ORAL ORDER 2 16-08-2012 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the State. The petitioner seeks direction to be considered for promotion and inclusion in the Graduate trained scale. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner holds the qualification of Sahityalankar from the Hindi Vidya Peeth at Deoghar. He acquired the teachers training qualification in April, 1995 and pursued a post graduation course in M.A. from the Open University, Nalanda in the year 2001. He has also passed the Doctorate of Philosophy examination in 2012. The respondents are totally unjustified in raising a frivolous issue that his Sahityalankar was not equivalent to Graduation. Reliance is placed on a Government notification dated 11.1.1991 to contend that the

¶2

Patna High Court CWJC No.13901 of 2012 (2) dt.16-08-2012

¶3

2 / 3

¶4

State Government has explicitly recognized Sahityalankar from the HindiVidya Peeth, Deoghar equivalent to Graduation.

¶5

Counsel for the State submits that a similar matter has been referred to a Division Bench by this Bench in C.W.J.C. No.13836 of 2012 in view of (2012) 3 PLJR 353.

¶6

Normally judicial discipline would have required that the present matter should also have been referred to the Division Bench, if it was based on similarity of facts.

¶7

But, the Court finds great substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. Learned counsel contends that the questions pertain to academic matters and equivalence of academic qualifications for which the academician are the best judge as distinct from any functionary of the State Government acting in an executive capacity. He appears to be correct in his submission that if the Nalanda Open University was not satisfied in its academic appreciation that his Sahityalankar degree was not equivalent to Graduation, he would not have been granted admission in the M.A. (Art) course as lacking graduate qualification. Once he has been granted admission in a post graduate course it lends strength to his contention that he possess a valid Graduation qualification to the satisfaction of the academician. Carrying the same logic further, if the petitioner did not hold a Graduate qualification, he could not have secured admission in a post graduate course much less

¶8

Patna High Court CWJC No.13901 of 2012 (2) dt.16-08-2012

¶9

3 / 3

¶10

have pursued a Doctorate. At the latter stage again the academician found no infirmity in his graduate qualification.

¶11

The action of the respondents in declining to consider him for inclusion in the graduate trained scale does not appeal to logic and reason. The respondents are virtually questioning how the petitioner has obtained post graduate qualification and Doctorate qualifications when he did not possess graduate qualification. They have no jurisdiction to do so.

¶12

Let the respondents now decide the claims of the petitioner for inclusion in the graduate trained scale within a maximum period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order.

¶13

The writ application stands disposed.

¶14

P. Kumar/-

¶15

(Navin Sinha, J)

Ghanshyam Prasad Singh v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ghanshyam Prasad Singh 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

Pramod Kumar and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Tetari Devi @ Tetari Kumari and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Baban Thakur Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Bablu Thakur Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Gajendra Mandal Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Raju Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.