Dismissed

Kanchan Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC5 Sept 2012CWJC/6024/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging termination of service as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry. The court held that under the rules applicable at the time of termination, Matriculation was mandatory and equivalent qualifications did not apply, rendering the termination valid.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed in limine. petitioner held not eligible for appointment; termination valid.

Kanchan Kumari Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.6024 of 2008

¶3

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

¶4

Kanchan Kumari wife of Raju Prasad, resident of village-Nijampur, P.S.-

¶5

Janipur (Phulwari Sharif), District-Patna.

¶6

.... .... Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

The State of Bihar through the Department Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna.

¶9

Director, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna.

¶10

In-charge Director, Panchayati Raj, Bihar, Patna.

¶11

Block Development Officer, Phulwari Sharif, District-Patna.

¶12

Sarpanch, Gram Katchahari, Sorampur, Phulwari Sharif, Patna.

¶13

.... .... Respondents

¶14

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

¶15

Appearance :

¶16

For the Petitioner : Mr. Jai Prakash Verma, Advocate

¶17

For the Respondents : Mrs. Shashi Priya Pathak, A.C. to AAG-7

¶18

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

¶19

CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶20

and

¶21

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶24

5-09-2012 This Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution is notified before us pursuant to the reference made by the learned single Judge.

¶25

The matter at issue is the eligibility of the writ petitioner for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry. It appears that the petitioner had acquired the qualification of Madhyama awarded by the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna. The said qualification is considered equivalent to Matriculation

¶26

Patna High Court CWJC No.6024 of 2008 (5) dt.05-09-2012

¶27

2 / 4

¶28

under the formal education. Pursuant to her qualification of Madhyama she was appointed as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry, Sorampur, Phulwari Sharif, Patna on 28^th September 2007. However, on the ground that the petitioner did not possess the qualification of Matriculation, her service was terminated on 21^st January 2008. The said order has been challenged by the petitioner in the present writ Petition. Reliance is placed on the order of the learned single Judge (Navin Sinha, J.) dated 31^st January 2008 made on C.W.J.C. No. 13905 of 2007 filed by one Santosh Kumar Pandey.

¶29

In the said writ petition the learned single Judge has held that the qualification of Madhyama is recognized by the State of Bihar as equivalent to Matriculation. The said petitioner was, therefore, eligible for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry.

¶30

The Petition came up for admission hearing before the learned single Judge (Coram: Justice Smt. Sheema Ali Khan). By order dated 10^th May 2011, the learned single Judge has observed that while allowing C.W.J.C. No. 13905 of 2007, the learned single Judge did not notice the relevant recruitment Rules. In the opinion of the learned single Judge, under the relevant recruitment rules, passing of matriculation examination was the only qualification required for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry. Therefore, the reference.

¶31

The appointment to the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchahry is governed by the Secretary, Bihar Gram Kutchahry (Employment, Service Conditions and Duties) Rules, 2007. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for eligibility. The said Rule 5 reads as under:

¶32

Patna High Court CWJC No.6024 of 2008 (5) dt.05-09-2012

¶33

3 / 4

¶34

“5. For appointment.- (a) Qualification-. (i) He/she must be a citizen of India and a resident of the concerned Gram Panchayat of the State of Bihar;

¶35

(ii) The minimum educational qualification for the post of Secretary, Gram Kutchahry will be matriculate.

¶36

(b) Age:- …. …. ….”

¶37

It is evident that the eligibility prescribed under the aforesaid Rule 5 refers to passing of the Matriculation examination. In our opinion, therefore, passing of Matriculation examination alone would make a candidate eligible for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry. Any candidate having a qualification other than Matriculation, may be, recognized as equivalent to Matriculation, such candidate would not be eligible for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry.

¶38

We are of the opinion that the question of equivalence of qualifications would arise only if the rules permit employment of a person having a particular qualification or a qualification equivalent to such particular qualification. In the present case, as recorded hereinabove, the Rules did not allow any person but those who had passed the Matriculation examination to be appointed as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry. We may also note that the petitioner has not challenged the validity of the said Rules. Admittedly, the petitioner did not possess the requisite qualification of passing Matriculation examination. She was, therefore, not eligible for appointment as Secretary, Gram Kutchahry. Her service was rightly terminated on the ground of eligibility.

¶39

Patna High Court CWJC No.6024 of 2008 (5) dt.05-09-2012

¶40

4 / 4

¶41

Pursuant to the above referred judgment in the matter of Santosh Kumar Pandey confirmed in Letters Patent Appeal, the State of Bihar has issued notification on 5^th January 2009 to amend the aforesaid Rules of 2007. Under the modified Rules the eligibility is expanded to passing of Matriculation examination or passing of any examination equivalent to Matriculation examination. The said modification has been made effective from 31^st January 2008 (the date of the order in the matter of Santosh Kumar Pandey ).

¶42

We may note here that the petitioner was employed in 2007 and her service was terminated on 21^st January 2008, before the effective date of modification. On the date of termination of service, admittedly, she was not eligible for appointment. Challenge to the order of termination of service, therefore, fails.

¶43

For the aforesaid reasons, Petition is dismissed in limine.

¶44

(R.M. Doshit, CJ)

¶45

(Ahsanuddin Amanullah, J)

¶46

Pawan/-

Kanchan Kumari v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchan 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/s Priya Timbar Patna Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Rajiv Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

The Secretary State Technical Vs Kant Lal Coudhary and Ors.

St. Michael's Education Association Vs The Union Of India and Ors.

Most. Jawani Devi Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Mc.Dowell Co. Ltd. Vs State