Allowed

Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Patna HC21 Feb 2022CWJC/22833/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Patna High Court allowed writ petitions filed by teachers dismissed after their qualifications from a derecognized institute were retrospectively disqualified. The Court quashed the termination order, holding that the derecognition did not apply retrospectively to degrees acquired before the order, and directed reinstatement.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the impugned order dated 15.05.2018; directed reinstatement with continuity of service, salary for the entire period, and other consequential benefits.

Ajay Kumar Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors. — Service and Employment | Patna HC (2022)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.21397 of 2018

¶2

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

¶3

Nirmal Kumar and Ors Son of Anup Lal Yadav Resident of village-Sishwa, P.O.-Mojampatti, P.S.-Barhara Kothi, District-Purnea.

¶4

Birendra Kumar Son of Anandi Prasad Yadav Resident of village-Sishwa, P.O.-Mojampatti, P.S.-Barhara Kothi, District-Purnea.

¶5

Visheshwar Singh Son of Ram Dev Singh Resident of villageP.O.Sarmastpur, Via-Vasudevpur Chandel, P.S.-Mahnar, District-Vaishali844501.

¶6

Raj Kumar Yadav Son of Fauchai Yadav Resident of village-Sishwa, P.O.Mojampatti, P.S.-Barhara Kothi, District-Purnea.

¶7

Amrendra Prasad Yadav Son of Dallu Prasad Yadav Resident of villageSishwa, P.O.-Mojampatti, P.S.-Barhara Kothi, District-Purnea.

¶8

Ramesh Prasad Yadav Son of Jagdish Prasad Yadav Resident of villageJankinagar, P.O. and P.S.-Jankinagar, District-Purnea.

¶9

Vidyanand Yadav Son of Vindeshwari Prasad Yadav Resident of villageP.O. and P.S.-Rupauli, District-Purnea.

¶10

Ayodhya Prasad Yadav Son of Mohan Prasad Yadav Resident of villageBatauna, P.O.-Godhaila, P.S. and District-Madhepura.

¶11

Upendra Prasad Yadav Son of Parmeshwari Prasad Yadav Resident of village-Harerampur, P.O.-Mirchaibari, P.S.-Jankinagar, Via-Murliganj, District-Purnea.

¶12

Kusheshwar Prasad Yadav Son of Late Ganga Prasad Yadav Resident of village-Harerampur, P.O.-Mirchaibari, P.S.-Jankinagar, Via-Murliganj, District-Purnea.

¶13

... ... Petitioner/s

¶14

Versus

¶15

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶16

1. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶17

1. Deputy Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. District Magistrate, Purnea. 5. District Education Officer, Purnea. 6. District Programme Officer, Establishment Purnea. 7. Block Education Officer, Barhara Kothi, Purnea 8. Block Education Officer, Banmankhi, Purnea 9. Block Education Officer, Rupauli, Purnea.

¶18

... ... Respondent/s

¶19

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

¶20

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 2/11

¶21

with

¶22

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7066 of 2018

¶23

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

¶24

Indrajeet Prasad Hemanshu Son of Late Narshing Rai, resident of VillageBarahi, P.S.- Udakishunganj, District- Madhepura, at present posted as Asst. Teacher, Girls Middle School, Baghawa, District- Purnia.

¶25

... ... Petitioner/s

¶26

Versus

¶27

The State Of Bihar through Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna

¶28

The Principle Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶29

The Director Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶30

The District Education Officer, Purnia, District- Purnia.

¶31

The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnia, District- Purnia.

¶32

The Block Education Officer, Dhamdaha, District- Purnea.

¶33

... ... Respondent/s

¶34

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

¶35

with

¶36

Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22833 of 2018

¶37

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

¶38

Ajay Kumar son of Sri Vidyanand Yadav resident of Village- Sishwa, P.O.Mojampatti, P.S. Barhara Kothi, District Purnea.

¶39

... ... Petitioner/s

¶40

Versus

¶41

The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶42

The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶43

Deputy Secretary, Education Department Government of Bihar, Patna.

¶44

District Magistrate Purnea.

¶45

District Education Officer Purnea.

¶46

District Programme Officer Establishment Purnea.

¶47

Block Education Officer, Barhara Kothi Purnea.

¶48

Block Education Officer, Banmankhi Purnea.

¶49

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 3/11

¶50

Block Education Officer Purnea.

¶51

... ... Respondent/s

¶52

====================================================== Appearance : (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21397 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Y.V. Giri, Sr. Adv. Mr.Pranav Kumar, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Madanjeet Kumar -Gp20 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 7066 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Sharda Nand Mishra, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Smt.Binita Singh -Sc28 (In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 22833 of 2018) For the Petitioner/s : Mr.Ashish Giri, Adv. For the Respondent/s : Mr.Prabhakar Jha

¶53

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

¶54

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA ORAL JUDGMENT

¶55

Date : 21-02-2022

¶56

All the writ petitions have come up for admission. Taking into consideration the nature of the case, both the counsels have agreed to argue the case finally. Accordingly, the case was heard finally at this stage.

¶57

Mr. Y.V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 21397 of 2018 submits that the petitioners, who are working as teachers had acquired their B.ed qualification in between the year 1979-81 to 1986 from the Chhota Nagpur Prathmik Sikchhak Sichha Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi.

¶58

The Education Department found certain discrepancies upon inspection conducted of the said college and thereafter,

¶59

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 4/11

¶60

issued an order dated 30.09.1986 to de-recognise the said Teachers Education College w.e.f. 30^th September, 1986.

¶61

Learned counsel has further taken this Court to the said order to submit that the college was dully recognized on 26^th February, 1975 and continued to remain recognized till the order was passed on 30^th September, 1986.

¶62

Learned counsel submits that on account of derecognition and erroneous interpretation the petitioners' salary was stopped. The petitioners, therefore, preferred a writ petition before this Court and this Court in CWJC No. 3154 of 2018 vide its order dated 9^th March, 2018 directed the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnea to conduct an enquiry and take a final decision within a period of three months with liberty to the petitioners to assail the order, if the same goes adverse to them.

¶63

The District Education Officer (Establishment), Purnea vide its order dated 15^th May, 2018 took an interpretation of order dated 30.09.1986 to know that all the candidates, who had acquired degree of education prior to 1986-88 from Chhota Nagpur Prathmik Sikchhak Sichha Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi would stand disqualified and accordingly the petitioners and other similarly situated persons were held to be disqualified to continue and their services were dispense with, with direction to recover the

¶64

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 5/11

¶65

salary. The petitioners have assailed the said order before this Court.

¶66

Learned counsel submits that the order of de-recognition dated 30^th September, 1986 nowhere mentions of de-recognition with retrospective effect. He further submits that the earlier recognition order dated 26^th February, 1975 was passed for further Sessions 1975-76 and till further orders. Thus, all the students who acquired degree qualification from the said college would be eligible for appointment and their degrees cannot be said to be derecognised.

¶67

Learned counsel also taken to the order dated 16^th September, 1988 to submit that even the State Government rebut its order dated 30^th September, 1986 and continued recognition of the college for the Session 1986-88 temporarily. Thus, learned Counsel submits that there was no occasion for the concerned respondent to take a view that all the qualification prior to 1986-88 would stand de-recognise and prays to quash the order dated 15^th May, 2018 with consequential benefits.

¶68

Learned counsel has also placed on record the letter to show that similarly situated 07 other teachers have been continued and have also been granted salary.

¶69

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 6/11

¶70

Learned counsel submits that the termination order essentially is retrospective in nature which cannot have been passed.

¶71

Learned counsel appearing for the other two writ petitions have also adopted the arguments of their senior counsel and further in CWJC No. 22833 of 2018 learned counsel has relied upon on the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 178 of 2018 to show that candidates, who had passed out from the Session 1985-87 were permitted to appear in the examination also. The petitioner has passed out for the Session 1985-87 and he submits that as the order dated 30.09.1986 was retrospectively modified to even allow candidates for the Sessions 1986-88 and given them provisional recognition, the petitioners would be entitled to continue and the impugned order passed in his case also deserves to be set aside.

¶72

Learned counsel appearing for the State has submitted that as the recognition was cancelled vide order dated 30^th September, 1986, it would be assume that the college stood derecognised and all the qualifications which had been issued prior to 1986 would also be treated as de-recognised and, therefore, he supports the impugned order and submits that the order has rightly been passed and the petitioners cannot be said to be eligible to

¶73

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 7/11

¶74

continue as teachers as they all passed the requisite qualification from the said college for the various sessions prior to 1986 as mentioned in the order dated 15^th May, 2018.

¶75

I have considered the submissions. Recognition of teachers training institute have been a subject matter of litigation since long. This Court as well as the Hon'ble Apex Court has time and again expressed that institutes should possess the requisite infrastructure and qualified teachers for training the candidates who acquire the qualification from that college. For the said purpose, the N.C.T. E Act, 1993 has also come into force w.e.f. 1995. Prior to the Act come into force. The State Government at its own level was conducting inspections for examining and satisfying whether the institute is following minimum standards for the education programme laid down for awarding the requisite degree in B.ed.

¶76

The institute in the present case has acquired the recognition from the State Government vide order dated 26^th February, 1975. The recognition order reads as under:-

¶77

“ la[;k& 3A oha -------------- A 74 f'k0 564 f'k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj A ‘ izs kd] Jh izHkkr dkfUr pkS/kjh] ljdkj ds voj lfpo] fcgkj A lsok esa]

¶78

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 8/11

¶79

lfpo]

¶80

vjktdh; izkFkfed f'k{kd] f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] MksjaMk @ Fkji[kuk] jkWaph A

¶81

fo k; %& ‘ izLohd`fr A

¶82

egk'k;]

¶83

funs'kkuqlkj dguk gS fd jkT; ljdkj us fu.kZ;kuqlkj vjktdh; izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] MksjaMk ,oa Fkji[kuk (jkWph) dh fuEukafdr 'kŸkkZs ij 75&76 l= ls vxys vkns'k rd dh izLohd`fr iznku dh tkrh gS %&

¶84

1) nksuksa izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] jkT; ljdkj }kjk Lohd`r ikB~;Øeksa ds vuqlkj gh f'k{k.k dh O;oLFkk djsxhA

¶85

2) nksuksa egkfo|ky;ksa esa LVkfQax jktdh; izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa ds fy, LVkfQax iSVuZ ds vuqlkj gh gksxkA

¶86

3) fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa 100 izf'k{k.kkfFkZ;ksa ls vf/kd dk ukekadu ugha gksxk A

¶87

4) Nk=kokl] lkt lTtk] miLdj] fo|ky; Hkou vkfn dh leqfpr O;oLFkk jgsxhA

¶88

5) egkfo|ky; dh izcU/k dkfj.kh lfefr dk leqfpr xBu gksxk] ftlesa jkT; ljdkj ds }kjk le; le; ij ,d euksuhr lnL; Hkh gksaxs rFkk iw.kZ lfefr dk vuqeksnu jkT; ljdkj djsxh A

¶89

6) le; le; ij jkT; ljdkj }kjk fn;s x;s funs'kksa dk ikyu djuk gksxkA

¶90

jkT; ljdkj dks ;g vf/kdkj gksxk fd fdlh Hkh le; fo|ky; dh izLohd`fr okil ys ysa A

¶91

fo'oklHkktu

¶92

**g0@& ¼ izHkkr dkfUr pkS/kjh ½ ljdkj ds voj lfpo] fcgkjA ****

¶93

The aforesaid recognition order thus clearly postulates

¶94

that the institute shall remain recognised till further order. The next order which has come on record is the order dated 30^th September,

¶95

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 9/11

¶96

1986, whereby the State Government after conducting inspection found that the certain discrepancies with the institute and took a decision to cancel the recognition.

¶97

It would be appropriate to note the order as under:-

¶98

“i=kad 10@ok&0238@85ek0 ---------------

¶99

fcgkj ljdkj ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkxA

¶100

izs"kd]

¶101

Jh mek'kadj izlkn] ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpo]

¶102

ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj] iVukA

¶103

lsok esa]

¶104

ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] jkaphA

¶105

iVuk] fnukad

¶106

fo"k; %& vjktdh; NksVkukxiqj izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky; esu jksM] jkaph dh izLohd`fr ds laca/k esaA

¶107

egk ” k;]

¶108

mi;qZDr fo"k;d foHkkxh; i=kad & 1077] fnukad

¶109

” 30&09&86 ds izlax esa funs kkuqlkj dguk gS fd ftlds }kjk vjktdh; NksVkukxiqj izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] esujksM] jkaph dh

¶110

izLohdfr jn dh xbZ Fkh ds laca/k esa iquZfopkj dj jkT; ljdkj }kjk bl egkfo|ky; dks l= 1986&88 ls vLFkkbZ izLohdfr iznku djus dk fu.kZ; fy;k gSA fdlh Hkh ifjfLFkfr esa Nk=ksa dh la[;k ,d lkS ls vf/kd ugha gksxkA

¶111

foHkkxh; vf/klwpuk la[;k& 1107 fnukad 25&11&87 esa vafdr izLohd`fr dh 'krksZ rFkk vfu;ferrk dh tkap xfBr lfefr }kjk djkdj izfrosnu ij vfUre fu.kZ; fy;k tk;sxkA

¶112

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 10/11

¶113

fo'oklHkktu] g0@&mek'kadj izlkn ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA

¶114

Kkikad & 1082 iVuk] fnukad 16&9&88

¶115

izfrfyfi lfpo] fcgkj fo|ky; ijh{kk lfefr fcgkj] iVuk rFkk lfpo vjktdh; NksVkukxiqj izkFkfed f'k{kd f'k{kk egkfo|ky;] esu jksM] jkaph dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko';d dk;kZFkZ izsf"krA

¶116

mek'kadj izlkn ljdkj ds la;qDr lfpoA “

¶117

Thus, the cancellation is w.e.f. 30^th September, 1986. It would, therefore, not affect the candidates, who have already acquired the qualification between 1975-86. The order does not say that all degrees granted earlier should stand de-recognised. This Court further noticed that the order dated 30^th September, 1986 stood withdrawn vide order dated 16.09.1988 as the State Government reviewed its stand and recognised the degrees issued by the college for the session 1986-88 also. Thus, this Court is satisfied that the qualifications, which the petitioners acquired stood and continued to remain recognise.

¶118

In the circumstances, there was no occasion for the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Purnea to hold otherwise he could not have added words for the order dated 30.09.1986 and terminate the services of the petitioners. The order is thus found to be clearly contrary to law and also on facts. There is no such declaration by the State to de-recognise the

¶119

Patna High Court CWJC No.21397 of 2018 dt.21-02-2022 11/11

¶120

qualifications prior to 1986-88 acquired from Chhota Nagpur Prathmik Sikchhak Sichha Mahavidyalaya, Ranchi.

¶121

The termination order is found to be illegal also as it has been made retrospective no recovery could have been made.

¶122

In view thereof, the order dated 15.05.2018 is found to be erroneous and is accordingly quashed and set aside.

¶123

In view of above, the petitioners would be entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service and petitioners would also be entitled for their salary for the entire period and other consequential benefits, if any, vacancy has been made, the same should be restored to the petitioners.

¶124

The respondents are directed to make compliance of the order within a period of three months, failing which the petitioners shall be free to initiate contempt proceeding without further notice. The writ petitions are accordingly allowed.

¶125

(Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J)

¶126

pravinkumar/-

¶127

AFR/NAFR	NAFR
CAV DATE
Uploading Date
Transmission Date	25.02.2022

Ajay Kumar v. The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajay Kumar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rajesh Ray @ Rajesh Kumar Vs The State of Bihar

Ramesh Mahto Vs The State of Bihar

Bhola Nat Vs The State of Bihar

Vishal Kumar @ Nagmani Vs The State of Bihar

Mahendra Yadav Vs The State of Bihar

Jai Prakash Rai @ Prakash Rai Vs The State of Bihar