The court dismissed a second writ petition filed to challenge the cancellation of appointment of resource teachers due to non-f fulfillment of the requisite DCBR qualification within the stipulated two years.
The writ petition is dismissed for lack of merit without interference with the impugned order cancelling the appointment.
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.17392 of 2018
======================================================
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
Patna High Court CWJC No.17392 of 2018(3) dt.12-06-2019 2/5
For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Alok Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. AC to AAG-15 For the BEPC : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate ======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD ORAL ORDER
3 12-06-2019
Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel representing the State.
The petitioners in this case are moving this Court by way of second attempt to get rid of the order of cancellation of their appointments in want of fulfilling the requisite qualification. It is not in dispute that the petitioners participated in the selection process for appointment of Resource Teacher knowing fully well the conditions of the advertisement whereunder the selected candidates were obliged to obtain the requisite qualification of Diploma in Community Based Rehabilitation within two years. Let it be recorded that this qualification is required as per the eligibility conditions fixed by the Indian Rehabilitation Council, New Delhi. The fact that the petitioners were selected in August, 2013 but till date they have not acquired the required qualification is not in dispute. Many reasons have been cited at the Bar for not completing the course but that would not be a consideration which will go in favour of the petitioners.
The petitioners had earlier moved this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 9106 of 2015 which was disposed of vide order
Patna High Court CWJC No.17392 of 2018(3) dt.12-06-2019 3/5
dated 16.11.2017 with liberty to the petitioners to file an appropriate representation before the concerned authority. The authority concerned was directed to consider the same in accordance with law. Now after consideration the Director, Bihar Education Project Council has rejected the representation of the petitioners. The reasons for rejection are well explained in the impugned order which are quoted hereunder for ready
reference:
^^mYys[kuh; gS fd lkj.k ftyk ds fy, lalk/ku f”k{kd@iquokZl fo”ks’kKksa ds p;u gsrq fnukad 22-10-2012 dks v[kckj esa izdkf”kr foKkiu ds Øekad 8(II) esa vafdr Fkk iz[kaM Lrj ij mi;qZDr lHkh vgZrk ugha gksus dh fLFkfr esa oSls vH;FkhZ vkosnu ns ldrs gS tks Hkkjrh; iquokZl ifj’kn~] ubZ fnYyh }kjk Lohdr fMIyksek@fMxzh ds ikB~;Øe esa fdlh vf/kdr laLFkk esa ukekafdr gks ,sls vH;fFkZ;ksa dks p;uksijkUr 12000@& :i, dh jkf”k ekuns; Lo:i ns; gksxh ,oa fMxzh@fMIyksek izkIr dj Hkkjrh; iquokZl ifj’kn~ ubZ fnYyh ls fuca/ku ds mijkar vU; lalk/ku f”k{kk dh Hkk¡fr ekusn; dk Hkqxrku fd;k tk ldrk gSA ukekafdr vH;FkhZ dks ikB~;Øe ls lacaf/kr =Sekfld izxfr izfrosnu fu;ksDrk dks nsuk vfuok;Z gksxkA mYys[kuh; gS fd mlh foKkiu esa lalk/ku f”k{kd ds fy, vko”;d vgZrk esa vU; fooj.k ds lkFk Diploma in community Based Rehabilitation (DCBR) with 6 month certificate course in Education of children with special needs” vafdr gS A izdkf”kr foKkiu ds vkyksd esa oknh ,oa vU; dks lalk/ku f”k{kd ds :i esa p;fur djrs gq, y?kq lafonk vk/kkfjr l”krZ dk;Z djus dk ekSdk fn;k x;kA izdkf”kr foKkiu ds vkyksd esa oknh ,oa vU; us fu/kkZfjr vgZrk vkt dh frfFk rd iw.kZ ugha fd;k gSA buds ikl DCBR rks gS fdUrq “6 month certificate course in education of children with special needs” iw.kZ ugha gS] mDr dkslZ ls ukekadu rd ugha gSA oknhx.k }kjk vius vH;kosnu fnukad 21-12-2017 esa fopkj.kh; fo’k;ksa dk mYys[k fd;k gS ijUrq muds }kjk “6 month certificate course in education of children with special needs”
Patna High Court CWJC No.17392 of 2018(3) dt.12-06-2019 4/5
iw.kZ djus dk dksbZ lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA bl rF; dks oknh ,oa vU; us ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; esa nk;j ;kfpdk ds ikjk 14 esa Lohdkj fd;k gSA
Rehabilitation council of India New Delhi 7- 91/2014/3605 fnukad 25-06-15 esa Hkh ntZ gS fd “It is to inform that Diploma in community Based Rehabilitation (DCBR) Course aims to develop skilled personnel to work at the community level as community rehabilitation worker not as Resource Teacher”.
Respondent No. 6 vFkkZr ftyk dk;ZØe inkf/kdkjh loZ f”k{kk vfHk;ku lkj.k ls izfr “kiFk i= ds ikjk 8 esa vafdr fd;k gS fd “That not only that rather action has been taken against the petitioner in view of appraisal report of the technical support group (PSG) of Ed. Cil, New Delhi.
jkT; dk;kZy; i=kad 1E /4501 fnukad 13-09-2011 ds lkFk Edeil TSG fnYyh ds appraised Report esa vafdr fd;k x;k gS fd p;fur vH;FkhZ nks o’kZ ds vUnj Hkkjrh; iquokZl ifj’kn~ ubZ fnYyh }kjk fu/kkZfjr ;ksX;rk vFkkZr DCBR ds lkFk month certificate course in Education of children with special needs” iwjk dj ysaxs oknhx.k ds }kjk iwjk fd;s tkus dk lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k x;k gSA
mi;qZDr ds ifjizs{; esa leh{kksijkar ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk }kjk 9106@2015 esa fnukad 16-11-17 dk ikfjr vkns”k ds vkyksd esa oknh ,oa vU; nkos dks vLohd`r fd;k tkrk gS A**
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were unable to obtain the requisite qualification within the given period of two years because there were some dispute between the Council and the Institutions because of which the examination was not being held. This submission is of no relevance to judge the legality and validity of the impugned order.
This Court is therefore, in agreement with the
Patna High Court CWJC No.17392 of 2018(3) dt.12-06-2019 5/5
submissions of learned counsel for the State that the impugned order does not suffer from any infirmity. It is a well reasoned order which this Court declines to interfere with.
This writ application has no merit. It is dismissed accordingly.
(Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J)
avin/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner state s second writ petition challenging the cancellation of appointment on grounds of lack of qualification is maintainable.
Dharmvir Kumar and others
The State of Bihar
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
