Petitioner sought consideration for 2413 teacher posts but claims invalid due to unverified institute recognition. Court orders petitioner to produce evidence; appointment in reliance on Kanti Kumari judgment.
Petitioner to produce evidence of institution recognition; if provided, case referred to Director for decision based on prior judgment.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14400 of 2013
| =================== Dinesh Prasad Gupta Village/Mohalla: Pupri B Sitamarhi |
=================================== S/O Sri Gopal Prasad Gupta Resident Of azar, P.O.: Janakpur Road, P.S.: Pupri, District: .... .... Petitioner Versus |
|---|---|
| 1. The State Of Bihar Department, Govt. Of Bih |
Through The Principal Secretary, Education ar, Patna |
| 2. The Joint Secretary Government Of Bihar, Pat |
To The Government Education Department na |
| 3. The Director, Primary E 4. The Chairman, Bihar Veterinary College, Patna- |
ducation, Govt. Of Bihar Vikas Bhawan, Patna Staff Selection Commission, Govt. Of Bihar, 14 |
| 5. The Secretary, Bihar Veterinary College, Patna- |
Staff Selection Commission, Govt. Of Bihar, 14 |
| 6. The Joint Secretary, Bi Veterinary College, Patna- =================== |
har Staff Selection Commission, Govt. Of Bihar, 14 .... .... Respondents =================================== |
| Appearance : | |
| For the Petitioner/s : | Mr. Niraj Kumar, Adv. |
| For the State : |
Syed Arshad Alam, SC3 Mr. Gautam Kumar Yadav |
| For BSSC : =================== CORAM: HONOURABL ORAL JUDGMENT (Date: 9.5.2014) |
Mr. Satyam Shivam Sundaram, Adv. =================================== E MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA |
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
that his case should also be considered against 2413 posts of the lot of 34540 posts of teachers as per terms and conditions of Advertisement No. 210 of 2010, this Court prima facie will have no difficulty in coming to the conclusion that the reason given in the counter affidavit was good enough to disqualify the petitioner because the petitioner had failed to substantiate that his Teachers Training qualification was from valid and recognized institution. In the counter affidavit, which has been filed, the stand of the
Patna High Court CWJC No.14400 of 2013 (7) dt.09-05-2014
2
respondents is plain and simple that the petitioner claims to have passed Teachers Training Examination from Baliapal B.Ed. College, Baliapal, District Balasore, in the State of Orissa. The petitioners claims to have pursued his one year B.Ed. course in the year 1983-84 and a certificate of his passing examination has been issued on 24.5.1984, as contained in Annexure 2. As with regard to this institution which is claimed by the petitioner to have been affiliated to Utkal University the stand of the respondents in the counter affidavit is that the institution was not recognized by the University Grant Commission. To that extent paragraph no.6 of the counter affidavit being relevant is quoted hereinbelow:
“6.That the petitioner on his own has stated to have secured teachers training qualification Baliapal Bed College District Balasone, Orissa, whereas name of from the said institution does not figure in the list of institutions approved by the University Grant Commission.”
Patna High Court CWJC No.14400 of 2013 (7) dt.09-05-2014
3
validity of Utkal University. The question in fact is whether the College of the petitioner was recognized?
Patna High Court CWJC No.14400 of 2013 (7) dt.09-05-2014
4
petitioner and take a decision as to whether the petitioner would then qualify for being considered against 2413 posts of teachers in the light of the general observations and directions given in the order dated 15.1.2014 in C.W.J.C.No. 17899/2012 (Kanti Kumari v. the State of Bihar & ors.), relevant portion whereof reads as follows:
(i) For filling up 2413 posts, a Committee consisting of Director, Primary Education and Secretary to the Bihar Staff Selection Commission shall take any decision with the approval of Principal Secretary of Education Department. In case of difference of opinion between the two functionaries, namely, Director, Primary Education and Secretary to the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, the decision taken by the Principal Secretary of the Education Department shall be final. (ii) The Committee shall first issue notice in the newspaper for appearance of the 1929 candidates for counseling as per paragraph no. 7(a) of the counter affidavit filed in this case as has also been extracted earlier in paragraph no.28 of this judgment. Such counseling of 1929 candidates must be completed within a maximum period of three months and letter of appointment to the eligible candidates having prescribed qualification and fulfiling other eligibility conditions must be issued within one month of the date of completing the counselling.
(iii) The cases of 366 candidates again reflected in paragraph no. 7(c) of the counter affidavit shown to be pending also must be decided one way or the other within the same period of three months and those found eligible should also be given letter of appointment in next one month.
(iv) In the likewise manner, the Committee also must re-consider the case of 118 candidates not earlier found fit for appointment as again explained in paragraph no.7(b) of the counter affidavit and take a final decision in respect of them within the same period of three months and those found eligible among them
Patna High Court CWJC No.14400 of 2013 (7) dt.09-05-2014
5
should also be given letter of their appointment in next one month.
(v) Depending on the result of such exercise of fresh consideration of the cases of aforesaid 2413 candidats who were either absent during counseling or whose cases for appointment was kept pending or whose cases earlier was not found fit for appointment as explained in paragraph no.7 of the counter affidavit and upon issuance of appointment letters to those found eligible, they shall be given one month’s time for joining their post from their date of issuance of their appointment letter inserting a clause that if they do not join their post within the prescribed period, they shall forfeit their claim for appointment against 2413 posts for once and ever.
(vi) The Committee on expiry of the period of one month for joining of the eligible appointment from amongst aforesaid 2413 candidates shall obtain a district wise report of their joining in next one month and reascertain the position of left over vacancy on 2413 posts.
(vii) The Committee having taken the aforesaid steps and completed the exercise for considering the 2413 posts and on being reported the number of actual number candidates who had ultimately submitted their joining will re-ascertain the number of vacant posts in the respective subject category and would publish them in the newspaper as also on its official website inviting claims in a prescribed format from the left over candidates whose applications were received in time by the Commission and had formed part of 123149 of the total applications received as shown in the report of Hon'ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay the Special Officer submitted to Apex Court.
(viii) This inviting of claim must be done by the Committee within three months of issuance of last appointment letter to the category of 2413 candidates giving a clear one month time to remaining candidates
to submit their respective claim in writing in a prescribed format only by registered/ speed post. In no case any claim shall be entertained by receipt through hand in the department/commission.
(ix) The Committee only in exceptional cases and that too for reasons recorded in writing shall make any
Patna High Court CWJC No.14400 of 2013 (7) dt.09-05-2014
6
change in the seniority position in final panel of 94205 candidates as approved by the Apex Court on 13.10.2011 confining itself to make such correction in cases of clear clerical error or error of record or any other allied compelling reason. It is made clear that for such appointment only on the remaining vacancy after considering the cases of pending 2413 candidates, the revised merit list will be prepared not only in accordance with the terms and conditions set out in 2010 Rules and the advertisement but also in keeping with the statement made by the Respondents in paragraph no. 9(a) and 9(b) of the counter affidavit as also in the light of findings recorded in paragraphs 35 to 81 of this judgment.
(x) Such tentative revised merit list for the left over vacancies for each of the three subject teacher of general/ Urdu/Physical Training after considering the claims shall be published in newspaper and official website of the Education inviting objection and thereafter on considering such objection the revised merit list shall be finalized and made public both in newspaper and official website. This entire exercise however must be completed by the Committee within six months of publication of notice inviting the initial claim from the candidates.
(xi) It is from this revised panel for the limited number of vacancy left out after consideration of 2413 pending cases in the manner indicated above, that steps for appointment for left over vacancy will be completed within two months of publication of the final panel. In no event, such appointments however shall be made beyond the number of post for each subject category which is 2007 for the general subject, 372 for Urdu teacher and 34 for Physical Trained Teacher as clearly stated before the Apex Court and this Court in the status report dated 30.08.2012 and the counter affidavit respectively.
this application is disposed of.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)
surendra/-
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner qualifies for posts given his Teachers Training qualification is from an institution allegedly not recognized by UGC for the relevant year.
Whether incumbent courts can be asked to issue a positive direction for appointment pending substantiation of eligibility proof.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Kanti Kumari v. the State of Bihar & ors.Followed¶19
C.W.J.C.No. 17899/2012 (Kanti Kumari v. the State of Bihar & ors.)
Dinesh Prasad Gupta
State Of Bihar
Bihar Staff Selection Commission
Mihir Kumar Jha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
