Dismissed

Nisha Ranjani v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC6 Feb 2013L.P.A/972/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Letters Patent Appeal, the Hon'ble High Court of Patna dismissed an appeal against the rejection of a teacher's candidature for a Zila Parishad secondary school post. The court upheld the view that since her Matriculation qualification (the foundation) was from an unrecognized institution, she was not entitled to marks weightage required under appointment rules, leading to the collapse of

What did the court decide?

The appellant's appeal was dismissed affirming the Tribunal's order rejecting her claim for appointment as a secondary school teacher.

Nisha Ranjani Vs the State of Bihar and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Patna HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Letters Patent Appeal No.972 of 2011

¶3

¶4

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14935 of 2010. ====================================================== 1. Nisha Ranjani D/O Sri Gunakar Shukla Resident Of Village-Bhitahan Nizamat, Police Station-Bairiya, District-West Champaran.

¶5

.... .... Appellant/s Versus 1. The State Of Bihar Through Principal Secretary, H.R.D. Department, Patna, Bihar. 2. The Chairman, Zila Parishad, West Champaran, Bettiah. 3. The District Development Commissioner, West Chamaparn, Bettiah. 4. District Education Officer-Cum-Secretary, Selection Committee (Zila Parishad Madhyamik And Uchch Madyamik Shikshak Niyojan), West Champaran, Bettiah. 5. The Member, Selection Committee, West Champaran, Bettiah. 6. The District Magistrate, West Champaran, Bettiah.

¶6

.... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Pathak Dhananjay Kumar & Mr. V.S.Shukla, Adv. For the State Mt. Asit Kumart Jha, A.C.to G.P.VI. For the Zila Parishad : Mr. Nikesh Kumar, Adv.

¶7

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

¶8

and

¶9

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHIVAJI PANDEY ORAL ORDER

¶10

(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NAVIN SINHA)

¶11

8 06-02-2013 The appellant is aggrieved by order dated 26^th April 2011 passed in CWJC No. 14935 of 2010, dismissing the writ application, affirming the order of the District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, West Champaran dated 17^th April 2010 passed in Case No. 302 of 2010, declining his claim for appointment on the post of teacher in the Zila Parishad School at the secondary level.

¶12

Patna High Court LPA No.972 of 2011 (8) dt.06-02-2013

¶13

2 / 4

¶14

The State Government issued Notification No. 3152 dated 25^th August 2008 listing unrecognized Institutions for appointment as teacher in Primary Schools, the prescribed qualification for which was Matriculation or Intermediate. The petitioner obtained Matriculation qualification from Gurukul Kangari, Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar listed at Sl. No.3 as unrecognized Institution. The State Government issued another Notification No. 1346 dated 27^th August 2008 which did not recognise the qualification of Vidyalankar and Vedalankar equivalent to graduation from the same Institution at Sl. No.3 for appointment on the post of teacher in Secondary Schools. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that she had applied for the post of teacher in a Secondary School and not Primary School. The qualification for appointment in the former was Graduation and not Matriculation. Her Graduation qualification from the B.R.A. University is not in question. She, therefore, fulfilled the eligibility. Her Matriculation qualification was not an eligibility for the post of Secondary School teacher.

¶15

Learned counsel for the State has opposed the appeal. He submits that the Tribunal has adequately noticed that the merit position of a candidate for teacher in a

¶16

Patna High Court LPA No.972 of 2011 (8) dt.06-02-2013

¶17

3 / 4

¶18

Secondary School was calculated based on the average marks obtained at Matriculation, Intermediate and Bachelor in Education as also Training qualifications. Our attention was also invited to the Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik Avam Uchchtar Madhamik Shikshak (Appointment & Service Conditions) Notification 2006 dated 11^th July 2006 at Clause6(iv). It was submitted that the petitioner was not entitled for any marks weightage with regard to her Matriculation qualification, it being from an unrecognized Institution.

¶19

We have considered the submissions made, the materials on record and are of the opinion that the order under challenge requires no interference.

¶20

The petitioner undoubtedly was not an applicant for the post of Primary Teacher. The Matriculation qualification of the appellant undisputedly is from an institution not recognized by the State Government. The eligibility for appointment of a teacher in a Secondary School was graduation. But the appointment Rules contemplate awarding marks on the educational qualifications commencing from Matriculation, Intermediate, Graduation and Training in B.Ed. If her Matriculation qualification was from unrecognized Institution, the fact that Intermediate and

¶21

Patna High Court LPA No.972 of 2011 (8) dt.06-02-2013

¶22

4 / 4

¶23

Graduation may be from a recognized institution would not entitle the appellant to marks under the head Matriculation qualification. Her candidature, therefore, automatically collapses in preference to others. The distinction sought to be drawn that she had not applied for the post of Primary teacher becomes misconceived.

¶24

The qualification of Graduation was obtained on the edifice of a Matriculation qualification. The foundation, therefore, was laid at the stage of Matriculation claiming to be eligible for appointment as a teacher. The duties of a teacher, expertise required or to be acquired, the role and responsibility of a teacher in dispensation of education to young minds at the secondary level cannot be seen in isolation merely based on the graduation qualification ignoring the edifice on which it is founded. If the authorities are not satisfied of the education on which Graduation certificate is based, there being no challenge to the Rules, we see no reason to interfere with the order under

¶25

appeal.

¶26

The appeal is dismissed.

¶27

(Navin Sinha, J)

¶28

(Shivaji Pandey, J)

¶29

Jay/-

Nisha Ranjani v. the State of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Nisha Ranjani 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

Lucky Biscuit Companey Vs Commissioner of Income Tax II

Dr. Rabindra Kumar Singh Vs Commissioner of Income Tax and O

The State of Bihar and Ors. Vs Prem Kant Mishra

The Bihar State Electricity Bo Vs M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd. andO

Bihar State Electricity BOARDand Vs M/S Iceberg Industries Ltd.andOR

Bihar State Electricity BOARDand Vs M/S Ice Berg Industries Ltd.andO