Dismissed¶21

Chandramala Prakash Suman v. The State of Bihar

Patna HC12 Nov 2024CWJC/706/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Patna HC CWJC 706/2022 (decided 12-11-2024) Harish Kumar J - Shiksha Mitra re-employment / Non-Formal Instructor absorption claim dismissed as wholly misconceived; Sahitya Bhushan (Hindi Vidyapith) qualification not recognised by State for employment; earlier claim rejected in CWJC 18616/2009; petitioner never worked as Non-Formal Instructor and missed 26.02.2016 cut-off; Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules 2006 cited; respondents State of Bihar (Education Dept.) and DM Vaishali.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was found to have no merit and was dismissed. ¶21

Chandramala Prakash Suman Vs The State of Bihar — Patna HC (2024) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was found to have no merit and was dismissed.

¶21

Issue for consideration

Whether the petitioner, earlier appointed as a Shiksha Mitra (2003), is entitled to a direction to be adjusted on any Class III post as per his qualification or against the post of Non-Formal Instructor. +1 more

¶12

Court's answer

The petitioner's Sahitya Bhushan qualification has got no recognition by the State Government for the purpose of gaining employment, and the petitioner's claim on that score had already been turned down in C.W.J.C. No. 18616 of 2009.

¶18

Ratio / Principle

This Court finds the present writ petition wholly misconceived.

¶18

Key takeaways

The petitioner's claim of adjustment as Non-Formal Instructor cannot be considered because he had never worked as a Non-Formal Instructor and had not approached the Court within the cut-off date of 26.02.2016.ratio¶17
Since the petitioner admittedly never worked as Non-Formal Instructor, there is no question of any claim for absorption.ratio¶18

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Patna High Court (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.706 of 2022, oral order dated 12-11-2024, Harish Kumar, J): Writ petition by a petitioner earlier appointed as Shiksha Mitra in 2003, seeking adjustment on any Class III post per qualification or against the post of Non-Formal Instructor, dismissed as wholly misconceived. Grounds: (i) the petitioner's Sahitya Bhushan qualification (Hindi Vidya Pith, Deogarh, claimed equivalent to intermediate) has no recognition by the State Government for employment purposes, and the claim was already turned down in C.W.J.C. No. 18616 of 2009; (ii) the petitioner admittedly never worked as Non-Formal Instructor, so there is no question of absorption; and (iii) the petitioner did not approach the Court within the cut-off date of 26.02.2016. State's position noted that the Shiksha Mitra post stood abolished with the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006.

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.706 of 2022

¶2

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

¶3

Chandramala Prakash Suman, W/o Sri Surendra Bhagat, R/o Village-Mustafa Pur, P.O.-Maniyar Pur, P.S.-Bidu Pur, Dist.-Vaishali.

¶4

... ... Petitioner/s

¶5

Versus

¶6

The State of Bihar through the Secretary Education Dept. Govt. of Bihar, Patna.

¶7

The District Magistrate, Vaishali.

¶8

... ... Respondent/s

¶9

====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Anil Prasad Singh, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Sinha, AC to GP-23 ======================================================

¶10

CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE HARISH KUMAR ORAL ORDER

¶11

3 12-11-2024 Heard the parties.

¶12

The petitioner by invoking the jurisdiction of this Court seeking a direction upon the respondent to adjust the petitioner on any Class III post as per his qualification or against the post of Non-Formal Instructor.

¶13

Learned Advocate for the petitioner contended that though the petitioner was appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitra way back in the year 2003, however, on account of the fact that he secured the qualification of Sahitya Bhushan through Hindi Vidya Pith, Deogarh which is equivalent to intermediate, his claim was not considered for re-employment. It is next contended that the other persons who were also working on Shiksha Mitra, they have been later on absorbed

¶14

Patna High Court CWJC No.706 of 2022(3) dt.12-11-2024 2/3

¶15

against the Non-Formal Instructor.

¶16

Learned Advocate for the State vehemently opposed the prayer of the petitioner and contended that the issue with regard to the Shiksha Mitra has already come to an end after coming into force of Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Appointment and Service Condition) Rules, 2006; as the post of Shiksha Mitra has already abolished.

¶17

So far the claim of the petitioner of his adjustment against Non-Formal Instructor is concerned, the same cannot be considered for the simple reason that the petitioner had never been worked as Non-Formal Instructor, nor he has approached before this Court within the cut off date i.e. 26.02.2016.

¶18

Having considered the submissions advanced on behalf of learned Advocate for the respective parties, this Court finds the present writ petition is wholly misconceived. So far the contention of the petitioner with respect to his acquisition of qualification of Sahitya Bhushan is concerned, the same has got no recognition by the State Government for the purpose of gaining employment and the claim of the petitioner has already been turned down in C.W.J.C. No. 18616 of 2009. Admittedly the petitioner had never been worked as Non-Formal Instructor, thus there is no question of any claim for absorption.

¶19

Patna High Court CWJC No.706 of 2022(3) dt.12-11-2024 3/3

¶20

The writ petition sans any merit, fit to be

¶21

dismissed.

¶22

(Harish Kumar, J)

¶23

supratim/-

¶24

Chandramala Prakash Suman v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandramala Prakash Suman v. The State of Bihar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitendra Dwiwedi Vs The State of Bihar

Bhup Narayan Pandey Vs The Bihar State Road Transport Corporation

Shailesh Mishra Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.

Jyotish Prasad Vs The State of Bihar

Parshuram Sah Vs The State of Bihar

Sanjeev Kumar Singh Vs The State of Bihar