Patna High Court - Orders
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Vinay Kumar Singh & Ors on 28 April, 2011
Author: T. Meena Kumari
Bench: T. Meena Kumari
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
LPA No.607 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources , Govt. of Bihar,
At & P.O - Patna
3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran AT & P.O - Motihari.
Versus
1. Vinay Kumar Singh s/o Lal Babu Singh R/o Village - Bhawanipur, P.S.-
Sangrampur, District -East Champaran.
2. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, South Bhawanipur, P.S - Sangrampur,
District -East Champaran.
3. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, South Bhawanipur, P.S -
Sangrampur, District -East Champaran.
With
LPA No.104 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secratary, Human Resources Development Department Govt.
of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director , Primary Education Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate East Champaran
5. The District Superintendent of Education -Cum -District Programme Co-
Ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan East Champaran
6. The Block Development Officer Kotwa, East Champaran
7. The Block Education Extension Officer Kotwa, East Champaran
Versus
1. Nagendra Ram S/O Ram Surat Ram R/O Vill Bandirwa, P.S.- Kotwa, Distt-
East Champaran
2. Mukhiya , Gram Panchayat Maharani Bhopat Block - Kotwa, Distt - East
Champaran
3. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Maharani Bhopat Block -Kotwa,
Distt-East Champaran
with
LPA No.112 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Department Government of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary , Human Resources Development Department
Government of Bihar, Patna
3. The Director , Primary Education Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate East Champaran
5. The District Superintendent of Education-Cum-District Programme Co-
Ordinator,Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan East Champaran
6. The Block Development Officer Kotwa,East Champaran
7. The Block Education Extension Offficer Kotwa, East Champaran
Versus
1. Uma Shankar Prasad Yadav S/O Shri Kapildeo Rai R/O Vill Bhopatpur Nadi
Manhi (Kanhai More), P.S. Kotwa,Distt-East Champaran
2
2. Mukhiya , Gram Panchayat Uttari Bhopatpur, Block-Kotwa, East
Champaran
3. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Uttari Bhopatpur, Block-Kotwa,
East Champaran
With
LPA No.269 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Deptt., Govt. of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran
5. The District Superintendent of Education-Cum-District Programme Co-
Ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, East Champaran
6. The Block Development Officer, Sangrampur, East Champaran
7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sangrampur, East Champaran
Versus
1. Pramod Kumar Prasad S/O Sudisht Prasad R/O Vill.- Purainiya, P.S.
Kalyanpur, Distt.- East Champaran
2. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Jasauli Patti, Block Kotwa, Distt.- East
Champaran
3. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat, Jasauli Patti, Block- Kotwa, Distt.-
East Champaran
With
LPA No.271 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Deptt., Govt. of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, East Champaran
6. The District Superintendent of Education-Cum-District Programme Co-
Ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, East Champaran
7. The Block Development Officer, Kotwa, East Champaran
8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kotwa, East Champaran
Versus
1. Krishna Deo Das S/O Sheobalak Das R/O Vill.- Jasauli Patti, P.S. Kotwa,
Distt.- East Champaran
2. Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Kotwa, East Champaran
With
LPA No.301 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Deptt., Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Deptt., Govt. of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran
3
5. The Deputy Development Commissioner, East Champaran
6. The District Superintendent of Education-Cum-District Programme Co-
Ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, East Champaran
7. The Block Development Officer, Kotwa, East Champaran
8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Kotwa, East Champaran
Versus
1. Asha Kumari W/O Raj Kishore Yadav R/O Vill.- Bairiya, P.S. Motihari, Distt.-
East Champaran
2. Pramukh, Panchayat Samiti, Kotwa, East Champaran
With
LPA No.302 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Development Deptt, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Deptt., Govt. of
Bihar, Patna
3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna
4. The District Magistrate, East Champaran
5. The District Superintendent of Education-Cum-District Programme Co-
Ordinator, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, East Champaran
6. The Block Development Officer, Sangrampur, East Champaran
7. The Block Education Extension Officer, Sangrampur, East Champaran
Versus
1. Babita Kumari W/O Rama Shankar Thakur R/O Vill.- Nandpur, P.S.
Sangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran
2. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Dakshin Madhubani, Block- Sangrampur, Distt.-
East Champaran
3. Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Dakshin Madhubani, Block-
Sangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran
With
LPA No.306 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar
2. Secretary Human Resources Development Department, Bihar Govt., Patna
3. Director, Primary Education Bihar Govt., Patna
4. District Magistrate-Cum-Collector East Champaran
5. Deputy Superintendent Of Education East Champaran
6. District Programme Co-Ordinator East Champaran
7. The Block Development Officer Dhaka, East Champaran
8. Block Education Extension Officer Dhaka, East Champaran
Versus
1. Lalan Kumar S/O Ram Ekbal Sah R/O Vill. and Post- Barharwa
Fatehmohammad Via- Kundwa Chainpur, Distt.- East Champaran
2. Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Barharwa Fateh Mohammad, Distt.- East
Champaran
3. Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj, Barharwa Fateh Mohammad,
Distt.- East Champaran
With
LPA No.323 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar
4
2. The Principal Secretary Deptt. Of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, AT &
P.O.- Patna
3. The District Magistrate East Champaran, AT & P.O.- Motihari
4. The District Superintendent Of Education East Champaran, AT & P.O.-
Motihari
Versus
1. Alok Ranjan Singh S/O Baliram Singh R/O Vill.- Barwa, P.O.- Shyampur,
P.S.- Sangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran
2. The Mukhiya Gram Panchayat Raj, Barwa, P.S.- Sangrampur, Distt.- East
Champaran
3. The Panchayat Secretary Gram Panchayat Raj Barwa, P.S.- Sangrampur,
Distt.- East Champaran
With
LPA No.349 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. of Human Resources Govt. of Bihar, AT &
P.O. Patna
3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, AT & P.O. Motihari
4. The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, AT & P.O.
Motihari
Versus
1. Rambha Kumari W/O Jitendra Kumar Rajak R/O Vill.- North Bhawanipur,
P.O. Thikaha Bhawanipur, P.S. Sangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran
2. The Mukhia, Gram Panchayat Raj, North Bhawanipur, P.S. Sangrampur,
Distt.- East Champaran
3. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj North Bhawanipur, P.S.
Sangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran
With
LPA No.405 of 2010
1. The State of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Deptt. Of Human Resources Govt. of Bihar, AT &
P.O.Patna
3. The District Magistrate, East Champaran, AT & P.O. Motihari
4. The District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, AT & P.O.
Motihari
Versus
1. Akhilanand Shastri S/O Raja Mishra R/O Vill.- Ezra, P.S. Sangrampur,
Distt.- East Champaran
2. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, West Sangrampur, P.O. & P.S.-
Sangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran
3. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, West Sangrampur, P.O. &
P.S. Sangrampur, Distt.- East Champaran
*******
L.P.A. No. 607 of 2010 and
analogous cases upto L.P.A. No. 405 of 2010
For the State : Mr. Manikant Mishra, G.P. 25
Mr. Kinkar Kumar, A.C. to G.P.25
Mr. Vishwaroop Jha, A.C. to G.P.25
5
L.P.A. No. 349 of 2010
For the respondent : Mr. Uma Kant Shukla, Adv.
Mr. Rajesh Ranjan No.1, Adv.
L.P.A. No. 306 of 2010
For the appellant : Mr. Vishwaroop Jha (A.C. to G.P. 21)
For the respondents : Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Onkar Kumar, Adv.
Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Adv.
******
05. 28.04.2011The entire batch cases arises out of common order dated 24.03.2009 passed by learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 10631 of 2008. These appeals have been preferred by the State contending that the appointments of the petitioners-respondents herein made in the year 2006 were terminated, who were initially appointed on the post of Panchayat Sikcha Mitra and subsequently absorbed on the post of Panchayat Teachers, in terms of Rule 20(ii)(iii) of 2006 Rules.
Case of the appellants in these L.P.As. is that the writ petitioners-respondents herein were disqualified from appointment on the basis of degrees 6 they were holding as a result of which their services as Panchayat Siksha Mitra were terminated and subsequently they were absorbed to the post of Panchayat Teacher in terms of Rule 20(ii)(iii) of 2006 Rules. It is also their case that the appointments have been made as per 2006 Rules. The necessary educational qualification for appointment on the post of Prakhand Teacher and Panchayat Teacher is intermediate pass.
We have also examined the degree of Up-
Shastri which which has been recognized by the State Government is equivalent to the intermediate degree. In that view of the matter, the appellants have no jurisdiction to declare the Up-Shastri Degree holder to be not eligible or fit for appointment on the post of Panchayat Teacher which is in violation of Rules framed by the State Government in exercise of the powers of the State Government.
It has been contended before the learned 7 Single Judge as also before us that the respondents- appellants herein by virtue of letter no 4240 dated 15.11.2007 issued by the Principal Secretary declares the degree of Up-Shastri as equivalent to intermediate degree. It has further been contended before us that the appointments were made by virtue of the Rules which had come into force with effect from August 2008. All the petitioners-respondents herein are not entitled to be continued as Primary/Prakhand Teacher, for the reasons that the persons holding any degree after 2006 Rules, being amended were not eligible to hold the post of teacher (General). It is also further contended by the appellants the persons holding Up- Shastri Degree cannot be appointed on the post of Primary Teachers for the reasons that Sanskrit is not taught at Primary level.
But, however, the learned Single Judge after hearing the matter has observed that the amended provision of 2008 Rules cannot have any impact on the 8 petitioners-respondents herein who have been appointed as Panchayat/Prakhand Teachers as the amended rule is effective only prospectively and not retrospectively. The learned Single Judge has also directed the District Superintendent of Education, East Champaran, Begusarai, Supaul, Araria and Katihar to reinstate the petitioners-respondents herein forthwith in case termination order has been issued to them and they were restrained from discharging their duties. It has further been directed by learned Single Judge to ensure payment of arrears of salary as well as current salary to the petitioners-respondents herein for which they are entitled and further directed to allow the petitioners-respondents herein to discharge their duties.
The above findings of the learned Single Judge is also questioned in the present Letters Patent Appeals by learned Standing Counsel, (J.C. to Government Pleader) by contending that by virtue of 9 amended rules, the petitioners-respondents herein were continued on the posts of Primary/Prakhand Teacher on the degrees of Up-Shastri and Maulvi who were absorbing as Panchayat Teachers in terms of Rule 20 (ii)(iii) of 2006 Rules for the reasons that 2008 Rules is very specific in nature with regard to educational qualification which has been prescribed under 2008 Rules.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-respondents herein have relied upon a decision of the Division Bench of this court passed in C.W.J.C. No. 15646 of 2008 with other analogous cases whereby the Division Bench of this court after hearing on the point of constitutional validity of the rules i.e. constitutional validity of Rule 4 of the Bihar Panchayat Prathmik shikshak (Appointment and Service Condition)(Amendment) Rules 2008, has upheld that this rule which deals with qualification, appointment and service condition (Amendment) Rules 10 2008, also deals with qualification for appointment of Panchayat Teacher (General), by virtue of which, the persons holding the qualification of Maulvi and Up- Shastri were held to be eligible and considered for appointment in terms of the aforesaid rules.
The learned counsel for the respondents have also submitted that when the rules have been upheld by Division Bench of this court, the appellants have no occasion to submit that they should fall back the rule 4 to remove the services of the petitioners-respondents herein who have been appointed in pursuance to 2006 Rules.
We find some force in the contentions made on behalf of the petitioners-respondents herein that when the 2008 Rules have been upheld by rule 4 of Bihar Panchayat Prathmik Shikshak (Appointment and Service Condition)(Amendment) Rules 2008, on account of which service condition of amended rule of 2006 have been upheld by Division Bench of this court, 11 in C.W.J.C. No. 15646 of 2008, and the said order has become final.
We are of the opinion that the rules cannot be made with retrospective effect by terminating the services of the petitioners-respondents herein or they have not been asked to render their services on the particular category.
As no material has been produced before this court by counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants that the petitioners-respondents herein have not obtained their degrees from the respective universities with reference to the qualification as framed by Rules 2006, therefore, we rely upon the decision of Division Bench of this Court stated supra, and hence case of the appellants fails.
We are in agreement with the contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioners- respondents herein. Accordingly, these Letters Patent Appeals has to be dismissed.
12
In that view of the matter, we confirmed the order of learned Single Judge and accordingly, these Letters Patent Appeals stand dismissed.
(T. Meena Kumari, J.) Rajeev/Praveen (Akhilesh Chandra, J.)