Dismissed

Baikuntha Kumar Pathak v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC29 Apr 2014CWJC/3003/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court held that under the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher Rules, 2006, a teacher is entitled to only two attempts to pass the efficiency test, not three. The Court clarified that the provision for an additional increment applies only to the first attempt. Consequently, removal from service after failure in two attempts is lawful under the Rules. However, the writ was dismissed wi

What did the court decide?

Writ dismissed with a direction to the District Education Officer, Aurangabad, to examine and notify within three months if other teachers failing in two attempts are erroneously allowed to continue i

Baikuntha Kumar Pathak Vs The State Of Bihar… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Patna HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3003 of 2013

¶2

====================================================== Baikuntha Kumar Pathak, S/O Late Triveni Pathak, resident of village - Chinta Wankotha, P.S. - Madanpur, Distt. - Aurangabad .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. The State of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resource Department, Govt. of Bihar 3. The Director, Primary Education, HRD, Govt. Of Bihar 4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad 5. The District Programme Officer, Aurangabad 6. The District Education Officer, Aurangabad 7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Madanpur, Aurangabad 8. The Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Manika, Madanpur 9. The Appellate Authority, District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Aurangabad 10. The Headmaster, Govt. Middle School, Mahuain, Madanpur .... .... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Sanjay Kumar, Advocate. For the Respondent/s : Mr. Prahlad Kr. Bhagat, ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA ORAL ORDER 2 29-04-2014 Heard learned counsel for the parties. Assailing the impugned order passed by the District Teacher Employment Appellate Authority (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal') dated 08.11.2012 in case No. 28 of 2012, learned counsel for the petitioner has basically concentrated on the aspect that if a true interpretation of the amended Rule 12 of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment & Service

¶3

Patna High Court CWJC No.3003 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2014

¶4

2/6

¶5

Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Rules') is given, every untrained person, who was initially appointed as Panchayat Teacher, will be entitled for actually three opportunities to pass the efficiency test and, therefore, the Tribunal has committed an obvious error in affirming the action of the employer, Panchayat Samiti, in removal of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Teacher.

¶6

This Court would find it difficult to accept such submission for more than one reason. Firstly, the Rules provides only for two examinations, as would be evident from the extract of amended Rule 12(iii) of the 2006 which reads as under:

¶7

^^¼AAA½ izR;sd rhu o"kksZ a ds ckn ¼dqy nks ckj½ bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu fu;ksftr f'k{kdks a dk ;Fkk funsZf'kr ewY;k a du ¼n{krk tk a p0½ fd;k tk;sxkA ewY;k a du ds vk/kkj ij lkekU; dksfV es a U;wure 45 % ,o a vkjf{kr dksfV es a U;wure 40 % v a d izkIr djusokys izf'kf{kr f'k{kdks a ds osru es a 500@& ¼ik a p lkS½ :i;s rFkk vizf'kf{kr f'k{kdks a ds osru es a 300@& ¼rhu lkS0½ :i;s dk ,deq'r of} dh tk;sxhA fu/kkZfjr v a d ls de v a d izkIr djus okys f'k{kdks a dks osru of} ns; ugh a gksxhA lkekU; dksfV es a 45 % ls uhps rFkk vkjf{kr dksfV es a 40 % ls uhps v a d izkIr djusokys f'k{kdks a dks muds v a d es a lq/kkj gsrq ,d vfrfjDr ekSdk fn;k tk;sxkA N% ekg ds ckn mudk iueZwY;k a du fd;k tk;sxkA ewY;k a du ds i'pkr~ fu/kkZfjr U;wure v a d ls de v a d izkIr djusokys f'k{kdks a dks muds fu;ksDrk ds }kjk lsok ls gVk fn;k tk;sxkA**

¶8

Therefore, whatever has been stated in the second sentence of the aforesaid Rule 12(iii) is basically with regard to first attempt of the candidate in the first examination which may give benefit of increment as fixed therein subject to obtaining the marks

¶9

Patna High Court CWJC No.3003 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2014

¶10

3/6

¶11

prescribed. Such of the candidates, who are not in a position to secure that cut off marks, have to be given one more opportunity to earn their increments, but if they fail, even in the second examination, to get the prescribed marks, all they will be entitled is removal from service because the Rules do not say that after having failed in two examinations, there will be any third examination. The word 'additional opportunity' has to be read in with the sentence with regard to an examination of the first opportunity. To that extent, the following finding of the Tribunal also does not suffer from any error:

¶12

eSus i a pk;r izkj a fHkd f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,o a lsok 'krZ½ l a 'kks/ku fu;ekoyh es a mn/kr fu;e 12 ds mifu;e ¼3½dk voyksdu fd;kA izR;sd rhu o"kksZ a ds ckn ¼dqy nks ckj½ bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu fu;ksftr f'k{kdks a dh ;Fkk funsZf'kr ewY;k a du ¼n{krk tkp½ fd;k tk;sxkA eqY;k a a du ds vk/kkj ij lkekU; dksfV es a U;wure 45 izfr'kr ,o a vkj{k.k dksfV es a U;wure 40 izfr'kr v a d izkIr djus okys izf'kfZ{kr f'k{kdks a ds osru es a 500@ ,o a vizf'kf{kr f'k{kdks a dks 300 :i;s dk ,deq'r of} dh tk;sxhA--------- lkekU; dksfV es a 45 izfr'kr ls uhps rFkk vkjf{kr dksfV es a 40 izfr'kr ls uhps v a d ikus okys f'k{kdks a dks muds v a d lq/kkj gsrq ,d vfrfjDr ekSdk fn;k tk;sxkA------------- eS a ;gh Li"V djuk pkgrk gw W fd ,d vfrfjDR ekSdk fn;s tkus dk vFkZ 'kq:vkr ds ykbZuks a es a ifjHkkf"kr ¼dqy nks ckj½ dh vksj gh b'kkjk djrk gSA vxj fu;ekoyh ds fuekZrk dh e a 'kk rhu ckj dh gksrh rks og dks"Vd es a ¼dqy nks ckj½ ugh a fy[krkA bruk gh ugh a blh fu;ekoyh ds ¼[k½ osru o`f} dk W ye ds ¼2½ vuqHkkx es a Hkh Li"V fd;k gS fd lkekU; dksfV es a 45 izfr'kr ls uhps rFkk vkjf{kr dksfV es a 40 izfr'kr ls uhps v a d izkIr djus okys f'k{kdks a dks muds v a d es a lq/kkj gsrq ,d vfrfjDr ekSdk fn;k tk;sxk] f}rh; ewY;k a du n{krk ijh{kk ds i'pkr fu/kkZfjr U;wure v a d ls de vd izkIr djus okys f'k{kdks a dks fu;kstu lfefr ds }kjk Li"Vhdj.k iwNdj lsok ls gVk nsuk bl okD;k a 'k es a Hkh ;g vkHkkl gksrk gS fd dqy feykdj nks ckj gh n{krk ijh{kk es a lfEefyr gksdj lQyrk dh vfuok;Zrk izkIr djuk fu;ekoyh ds fuekZrk dh e a 'kk jgh gS ,d vfrfjDr ekSdk fdlh hkh n'kk es a a n{krk ijh{kk gsrq rhljs volj dk fodYi ugh a gSA

¶13

Patna High Court CWJC No.3003 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2014

¶14

4/6

¶15

Once this Court would find that there was a statutory provision made with regard to removal of a teacher who fails to pass the prescribed examination in two attempts, the rest of the submission that the Headmaster has illegally stopped the petitioner from working, has to be again understood in the context that the Government itself had issued a Circular on 18.04.2012 wherein each and every controlling authority was directed not to allow any such teacher to continue in service who had failed to qualify in the prescribed test in two attempts. To that extent, the relevant portion

¶16

of the direction given by the Director, Primary Education in his letter dated 18.04.2012 is quoted herein below:

¶17

^^i=k a d&7@fu;ks001&26@2009 291 f'k{kk foHkkx fcgkj vk'kqrks"k] Hkk0iz0ls0 funs'kd ¼izkFkfed f'k{kk½

¶18

lsok es a ]

¶19

l a c a f/kr ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh ¼l a yXu lwph ds vuq:i½

¶20

iVuk] fnuk a d 18-04-012 fo"k;& izkj a fHkd f'k{kd eqY;k a du n{krk ijh{kk 2009 ,o a 2010 nksuks a ijh{kkvks a es a vuqrhZ.k ijh{kkFkhZ;ks a ds lc a a /k e a sA izl a x& funs'kd jkT; f'k{kk 'kks/k ,o a izf'k{k.k ifj"kn~] iVuk ds i=k a d 903]fnuk a d 4-4-2012

¶21

egk'k;]

¶22

vki voxr gS fd fcgkj i a pk;r izkj a fHkd f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,o a lsok 'krZ½ ¼l a 'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh 2009 ,o a fcgkj uxj fudk; izkj a fHkd f'k{kd ¼fu;kstu ,o a lsok 'krZ½ ¼l a 'kks/ku½ fu;ekoyh 2009 es a ;g izko/kku gS fd eqY;k a du ¼n{krk ijh{kk½ es a 02 ¼nks½ ckj vuqrhZ.k f'k{kdks a dks fu;ksDrk }kjk gVk fn;k tkuk gSA bl a dze es a izkl a fxd i= ds }kjk izkj a fHkd f'k{kd eqY;k a du ¼n{krk½ ijh{kk 2009 ,o a 2010 nksuks a ijh{kkvks a es a vuqrhZ.k jkT; ds dqy 151 ¼,d lkS bDdkou½ fu;ksftr f'k{kd@f'kf{kdkvks a dh lwph izkIr gqbZ gSA

¶23

mDr lwph dh ,d izfr vkids Lrj ij izsf"kr djrs gq, funsf'kr djuk gS fd vki vius ftys ls l a c a f/kr fu;kstu bdkbZ

¶24

Patna High Court CWJC No.3003 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2014

¶25

5/6

¶26

ds lnL; lfpo dks l a c a f/kr f'k{kd@f'k{kdkvks a dh fooj.kh miyC/k djkrs gq, mDr f'k{kd@f'kf{kdkvks a ds fu;kstu dks fofgr izfdz;k dk vuqdj.k djrs gq, fu;kstu lekIr djus dk funs'k n s a xs ,o a vuqikyu dh fLFkfr ls v|ksgLrk{kjh dks 15 fnuks a ds vUrxZr voxr djk;sxsA ;fn bl dksfV ds f'k{kdks a dk Hkfo"; es a fu;r osru Hkqxrku gksrk gS rks ;g vfu;fer Hkqxrku gksxk ftlds fy, ftEesnkjh lqfu'fpr dj l a c a f/kr inkf/kdkjh @dehZ ds fo:n~/k foHkkxh; ,o a dkuwuh dkjZokbZ dh tk ldrh gSA

¶27

fo'oklHkktu g0@& ¼vk'kqrks"k½ funs'kd ¼izkFkfed f'k{kk½**

¶28

In view of the above, no authority had any discretion to allow the petitioner to continue in service and incur the wrath of the Government by way of stoppage of payment of his own salary.

¶29

At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though there were 151 of such teachers who had not passed either of the two examinations, such action has been taken only against the petitioner. Since the names of such 151 teachers have not been given in the writ application, this Court will not like to say anything in this regard but at the same time the competent authority, namely, District Education Officer, Aurangabad is hereby directed to examine as to whether the persons, like the petitioner, who having not passed the prescribed examination in two attempts, are being still allowed to continue in service. The petitioner would beat liberty to draw the attention of the District Education Officer, Aurangabad to this effect and it is expected that an expeditious decision will be taken by him in accordance with

¶30

Patna High Court CWJC No.3003 of 2013 (2) dt.29-04-2014

¶31

6/6

¶32

law, within three months from the date of filing of the

¶33

representation by petitioner.

¶34

Subject to the aforementioned observation and

¶35

direction, this writ application is dismissed.

¶36

Sujit/-

¶37

(Mihir Kumar Jha, J)

Baikuntha Kumar Pathak v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Baikuntha Kumar Pathak 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

Ram Lochan Singh and Ors. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Dr. Nitendra Prasad Sinha Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kumud Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Reena Kumari Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Kailash Prasad Yadav Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Bideshwar Nayak Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.