Patna High Court
Bibi Nahida Khatoon & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 August, 2016
Author: Anjana Mishra
Bench: Anjana Mishra
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.10187 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Krishnandan Kumar, son of Late Deonandan Prasad, R/o- Dullibigha, P.S.
Nimchak Bthani, District - Gaya.
2. Umashankar Chaubey, son of Late Juthadhan Chaubey, R/o- Village- Panapur,
P.S. Bella, District Kaimur.
3. Md. Yashin,. Son of Late Manjoor Ahmad, R/o- village - Bandi, P.S. Nimchak
Bathani, District Gaya.
4. Arun Pandey, son of Sri Bachulal Pandey, R/o- Village - Chakand, P.S.
Chakandauti, District - Gaya.
5. Shail Kumari, D/o Late Bikrama Upadhya, R/o- village Lodhi, P.S. Sasaram,
District Rohtas.
6. Neelam Sinha, W/o- Ashok Kumar Sinha, R/o- Village +P.S. Belaganj, District
Gaya.
7. Arbind Kumar, S/o- Late Hari Yadav, R/o- Village Nasirbigha, P.S. Nimchak
Bathani, District - Gaya
8. Hem Raj Prasad, S/o Tulsi Prasad, R/o- village Khudai, P.S. Khiddirsarai,
District - Gaya.
9. Shiv Prasan Tripathi, S/o- Late Mahesh Tripathi, R/o- village - Chikhuriyan, P.S.
Chenari, District Rohtas.
10. Savitri Ojha, W/o- Nandjee Ojha, R/o- village Shivpuri Ward No. 15, P.S.
Buxar, District Buxar.
11. Basanti Kumar, D/o- Ram Pravesh Chaubey, R/o- Village- Basaw Mathiy
Koirpur, P.S. + District Buxar.
12. Md. Arshad Iqbal, S/o- Manzoor Ahmed, R/o- Village - Bandi, P.o. Bandi
Maniyara, P.S. Neemchak, Bathani, District Gaya.
13. Meena Kumari, S/o- Ram Sewak Singh, R/o- Village- Saron, P.S. Nimchak,
District - Gaya.
14. Md. Akram Ali, S/o- Md. Ashrab, R/o- Village Bandi, P.O. Bandi Maniyara,
Nimchak Bathani, District - Gaya.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
The State of Bihar through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
2/34
3. The Principal Secretary, Primary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, (Primary Education), Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
With
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9993 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Bibi Nahida Khatoon, W/o Rizwan Alam, R/o- Village Banmattar, Post +P.S.
Joki Hat, district Araria.
2. Bibi Gulsan Aara, W/o- Shabbir Alam, R/o- village - Maharhiya, Post -
Baagnagar, P.S. Mahalgaon, District - Araria.
3. Babi Naziya Parween, W/o- Khurseed Alam, R/o- Village Raharya, Post -
Bagdahra, P.S. Jokihat District - Araria
4. Bibi Rizwana Tabassum, D/o- Md. Zahrruddin.
5. Masooda Khatoon, D/o- Taslimuddin, R/o- Village Bammattar, Post + P.S.
Jokihat District - Araria
6. Md. Sayeed, S/o- Allauddin, R/o- Village + Post Chirah, P.S. Mahalgaon,
District Araria.
7. Bibi Nuzhat Tabbassum, D/o- Shafique Rahman, R/o- Village+Post - Chirch,
P.S.- Mahalgaon, District Araria.
8. Babi Nazameen, D/o Serajuddin, R/o- Village Masuriya, Post Mruariya, P.S.
Mahalgoan, District Araria..
9. Bibi Safwana Begam, W/o Md. Ajhar Alam, R/o Village Asyam, P.O. Tarona,
P.S. Jaalgarh, District - Purnia.
10. Bibi Saukat Aara, W/o- Naushad Alam, R/o- village Kahlata Post -
Baardistembar, P.S. Jokihat District - Araria
11. Bibi Rubi Khatoon, W/o Rehan Alam, R/o Village + Post - Kasarwa, P.S.
Jokihat, District Araria.
12. Waheeda Tabbassum, D/o Gulam Bakhar, R/o- Village Kasibari, P.o. Kasarwa,
P.S. Jokihat District - Araria
13. Bibi Nikhat Banu, W/o- Fakhruj Jama, R/o Village Satbita, P.O. Bairgachi, P.S.
Jokihat District - Araria
14. Abdul Gafoor, S/o Ziyaur Rahman, R/o Village Darsana, Post + P.S. Jokihat
District - Araria
15. Bibi Barjish, D/o Alimuddin, R/o village - Chamanpur, Post Bara, P.S. Jokihat,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
3/34
District Araria.
16. Bibi Ruqaiya Khatoon, W/o Afroz Alam, R/o Village + Post Baagonagar, P.S.
Mahalgaon, District Araria.
17. Bibi Heena Kausar, D/o Saimuddin, R/o Village Kajlata, Post Beera Istembar,
P.S. Jokihat, District Araria.
18. Mumtaz Begam, D/o Mohiuddin, R/o village Darsana, Post + P.S. Jokihat
District - Araria
19. Bibi Nusrat Jahan, D/o Rafique Alam, R/o- village Simgarmohmi, Post + P.S.
Jokihat District - Araria
20. Bibi Mahe Nihar, D/o Riyazuddin, R/o Village Parwanpur, Post Girda, P.S.
Jokihat District - Araria
21. Rubana Khatoon, W/o Kamrujjama, R/o Village + Post Chakay, P.S. Jokihat
District - Araria
22. Farhana Khatoon, D/o Gulam Rahman, R/o Village Dehti Post Plasi, PS. Palasi,
District - Araria
23. Bibi Arsadi, D/o Md. Moinuddin, R/o Village +Post Gogipothiya, P.S.
Forbisganj, district Araria.
24. Bibi Israt Jahan, D/o Abdul Jabbar, R/o Village + Post Kamaldaha, P.S. +
District Araria.
25. Bibi Rahmati Khatoon, D/o Gulamgosh, R/o Village Chakai, Post Kamaldaha,
P.S. Araria, District - Araria.
26. Bibi Saabista Jarin, D/o Md. Aarif at Salayagarh, Post Madanpur, P.S.
Madanpur, District Araria.
27. Bibi Mahe Nigar Sultana, W/o Jamshad Alam, R/o Village Dewaiya, Post
Paiktola, P.S.+District - Araria.
28. Farhat Jabi, W/o Hamidur Rahman, R/o Village Hayatpur, Post chamderdaya,
P.S. Araria, District Araria.
29. Meena Devi, W/o Ramakant Deo, R/o Village Sijhwa, Post + P.S. Kursakanta,
District Araria.
30. Bibi Rabya Khatoon, W/o Md. Aiyub, R/o Village Madatipur, Post +P.S.
Kursakanta, District - Araria.
31. Bibi Shabnam, W/o- Abdul Quddus, R/o Village Karobhna Post chakaiya, P.S.
Jokihat District - Araria
32. Bibi Aamna Khatoon, D/o Khalilud Rahman, R/o Village - Thangspur, Post +
P.S. Jokihat District - Araria
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
4/34
33. Bibi Shabnoor, D/o Rafique Alam, R/o- Village Hatgaon, Post Maima Hat, P.s.
Palasi, District Araria.
34. Bibi Nusrat Jahan, W/o- Sahauddin, R/o- Village Chakaiy, Post Chakaiy, P.S.
Jokihat District - Araria
35. Barira Khatoon, W/o Rafique Alam, R/o Village Gamhariya, Post - Bagdeha,
P.S. Jokihat District - Araria
36. Sufya Hasmi, W/o Zameel Akhtar, R/o Village Kasibari, P.S. Jokihat District -
Araria
37. Nagma Qumar, D/o Mirza Ahmad, R/o Village + Post Matiyari P.S. Jokihat
District - Araria
38. Busra Naz, D/o Md. Idrish, R/o Village Ajhwa Singar Mohni Post + P.S.
Jokihat District - Araria
39. Bibi Unzur Jahan Begam, W/o Parwez Alam, R/o Village Lachanpur, Post
Bochgaon Purnea, P.S. Jalalgarh, District Purnia.
40. Bibi Sonabar Khatoon, W/o Md. Soib Alam, R/o Village - Dumri, Post
Maijgawan, P.s. Kasba, District Purnea.
41. Sabeena Khatoon, W/o Motiur Rahman, R/o Village Pankhawa, Post Southa,
P.S. Jalalgarh, district Purnea.
42. Tazkeera Khatoon, D/o Abubakar, R/o Village Gidarmari Post Ahalgaon, P.S.
Jalalgarh, District Purnea.
43. Husnbano, W/o Md. Saukat, R/o Village Madhura, Post Chouhtta, P.S.
Kishanpur, District Supaul.
44. Noor Jahan Begam, W/o Md. Qaiser Abbasi, R/o Village Islampur Khakhai
Post Khathara Kadampura, P.S. Kishanpur, District Supaul.
45. Nikhat Parween, W/o MOhiuddin, at + post Khathara Kadampura, P.S,
Kishanpur, District Supaul.
46. Khurseeda Bana, W/o Deen Mohamad Sabir, At + Post -Kharbitta, P.S.
Kisanpur, District -Supaul.
47. Rahmati Begam, W/o Mustaque Ahmad, At + Post Kadampura, P.S. Kishanpur,
District-Supaul.
48. Nazrana Khatoon, D/o Md. Yunus, R/o Village Madhura, Post Chouhatta, P.S.
Kishunpur, District - Supaul.
49. Rahmati Begam, D/o Mustafa Kumud, R/o Village Madhura, Post chouhatta,
P.S. Kishanpur, District - Supaul.
50. Seema Khatoon, W/o Md. Kaleemuddin, R/o Village Shrutipatti, Post - Chain
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
5/34
Singh Patti, P.S. + District - supaul.
51. Zaibun Parween, W/o Anwarul Haque, R/o Village Namuwa Puranwas, Post-
Ramalat Patti, P.S. + District Supaul
52. Shabnam Parween, D/o Md. Taiyab, Ward No. 17 Post Supaul, P.S. + District
Supaul.
53. Md. Tazanul Hassan, S/o Abdul Rajjaque, R/o- Village Ghuram, Post + P.S.
Supaul, District Supaul.
54. Bibin Shabana Khatoon, W/o Md. Surbatullah, R/o Village + Post Belahadha,
P.S. Kishanpur, District - Supaul
55. Bibi Ruqaiya Khatoon, W/o Murtaza NCC Kosi Colony Road, Ward No. 16
P.S. + District Supaul
56. Rizwana Begam, W/o Md. Ansadul Huque, R/o Village Bela Post - Bela P.S.+
District Supaul
57. Shayufta Rhmani, D/o Sadrul Rahmani, R/o Village Madhicha Post Bakol,
P.S.+District Supaul
58. Gulshan Parween, D/o Rizwan, R/o Village Parsa, Post Pipra, P.S. + District -
Supaul
59. Sahnaz Parween, D/o Kalimullah, Post Piprakhurd, Post Piprakhurd, P.S. +
District - Supaul.
60. Gulfasham Bano, D/o Abbas, R/o Village - Kumarganj, Post Kumarganj, P.S.
Kishanganj, District - Supaul
61. Mala Kumari, W/o Sikandar Kumar Das, R/o Village Kumarganj, Post
Kumarganuj, P.S. Kishanganj, District Supaul.
62. Bibi Gulenoor, W/o Imtiyaz Alam, R/o Village + Post Thadi Bhuwanpur, P.S.
Pipra, District - Supaul
63. Sabita Bagam, W/o Mahboob Rahmani, At + Post - Via Tharbitta, district -
Supaul.
64. Bibi Raffat Aara, D/o Mumtazin Khan, At + Post - thadi Bhawanipur, P.S.
Pipra, District Supaul.
65. Bibi Sakeena Khatoon, D/o Mufizul Rahman, R/o Village Malhani, P.O.
Sukhpur, P.S. + District Supaul.
66. Narhat Parween, W/o Hasnat, R/o Village + Post Thadi Bhawanipur, P.S. Pipra,
District - Supaul.
67. Meena Devi, W/o Santal Rajak, At Simariya, Post + P.S. Jokihat District -
Araria
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
6/34
68. Bibi Makhmoor Jahan, W/o Mumtaz Alam, R/o Village Miliktol chakaya, Post
Vhakaiy, P.S. Jokihat District - Araria
69. Sanobar Aara, D/o Saleemuddin, R/o Village Jogender, Post - Garki, P.S.
Mahalgaon, District Araria.
70. Anjuman Ara, W/o Molvi Subhan, R/o Village - Kajleta, P.O. Braistambra, P.S.
Jokihat, District - Araria .... .... Petitioners
Versus
1, The State of Bihar, through Chief Secretary, Govt of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
3. The Principal Secretary, Primary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna
4. The Director, (Primary Education) Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
.... .... Respondents
With
===========================================================
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 10434 of 2016
===========================================================
1. Lalan Kumar Jha, s/o Vishnu Jha, r/o village Kahthara, P.S. Manigachhi,
Distt. Darbhanga.
2. Razia Khatoon, w/o Rahmat Ali, r/o village Bhantha, P.S. Biraul, Distt.
Darbhanga.
3. Bibi Sumbala Khatoon, d/o Zainul Abedin Ansari, r/o village Supaul, P.S.
Biraul, Distt. Darbhanga.
4. Bibi Tarannum Khatoon, d/o Md. Mahboob Alam, r/o village Mansara, P.S.
Jamalpur, Distt. Darbhanga.
5. Nilam Kumari, w/o Chandrashekhar Choudhary, r/o village Patori, P.S.
Moro, Distt. Darbhanga.
6. Manju Kumari, w/o Ajay Kumar Choudhary, r/o village Mani Kauli, P.S.
Kalyanpur, Distt. Samastipur.
7. Shahjahan Begum, w/o Noor Alam, r/o village Bardaha, P.S. Jamalpur,
Distt. Darbhanga.
8. Farzana Asmin, w/o Zubair, r/o village Bathiya, P.S. Manigachhi, Distt.
Darbhanga.
9. Sakha Khatoon, w/o Ashraf Ali, r/o village Baika, P.S. Sakatpur, Distt.
Darbhanga.
10. Naushaba Khatoon, w/o Md. Abbas, r/o village Chilha Dilawarpur, P.S.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
7/34
Baheri, Distt. Darbhanga.
11. Nargis Khanam, w/o Md. Izharul Haque Khan, r/o village Anarkothi, P.S.
Ashok Paper Mill, Distt. Darbhanga.
12. Kumari Sushila, w/o Arun Kumar Mandal, r/o village Khangraitha, P.S.
Hayaghat, Distt. Darbhanga.
13. Meena Kumari, w/o Shankar Dayal Singh, r/o village New Balbhadrapur
Ramanand Path, P.S. Laheriasarai, Distt. Darbhanga.
14. Najma Khatoon, w/o Qutubuddin Ansari, r/o village Fakhira Jha, r/o village
Neem Chowk, P.S. Darbhanga, Distt. Darbhanga.
15. Anil Kumar Sinha, s/o Sri Mahendra Sinha, r/o village New Shivpuri Line
Basti, P.S. K. Hat, Block Purnia East, Distt. Purnia.
16. Nirmala Kumari, w/o Uday Chandra Jha, r/o village Kathara, P.S.
Manigachhi, Distt. Darbhanga.
17. Ranjit Prasad Pandey, s/o Mani Shankar Prasad Pandey, r/o village Rohua,
P.S. Waris Nagar, Distt. Darbhanga.
18. Manju Kumari, w/o Sunil Kumar Thakur, r/o village Rohua (West), P.S.
Waris Nagar, Distt. Darbhanga.
19. Anjum Ara Begum, w/o Sarfraz Ahmad, r/o village Aahis Dih, P.S.
Jamalpur, Distt. Darbhanga.
20. Kaushalya Devi, w/o Ashok Paswan, r/o village Baheri, P.S. Baheri, Distt.
Darbhanga.
21. Ghazala Mahjabin, w/o Md. Badri Alam Quasmi, r/o village Bauram, P.S.
Jamalpur, Distt. Darbhanga.
22. Nirmala Kumari, w/o Daya Shankar Ray, r/o village Madhuban, P.S.
Kusheshwar, Distt. Darbhanga.
23. Nilu Kumari, w/o Vimal Kumar Choudhary, r/o village Patory, P.S. Moro
(Basuwara), Distt. Darbhanga.
24. Vikki Ram, s/o Ramswaroop Ram, r/o village Nagardih, P.S. Jolley, Distt.
Darbhanga.
25. Umda Kumari, w/o Nawa Kishore Yadav, r/o village Katya, P.S. Kamtaul,
Distt. Darbhanga.
26. Ishteyaque Ahmad, s/o Iftekhar Ahmad, r/o village Umar Chaktola, P.S.
Kamtaul, Distt. Darbhanga.
27. Reena Kumar, w/o Suresh Paswan, r/o village Kora, P.S. Singhwara, Distt.
Darbhanga.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
8/34
28. Md. Ziaur Rahman, s/o Shahud Alam, r/o village Katai Barail, P.S.
Kamtaul, Distt. Darbhanga.
29. Rita Kumari, d/o Ramchandra Prasad, r/o village Dilwarpur, P.S.
Bahadurpur, Distt. Darbhanga.
30. Nilam Kumari, w/o Khagenra Prasaad Gupta, r/o village Kumhartoli
Tirpania, P.S. Kasba, Distt. Purnia
31. Bina Devi, w/o Ramcharitra Yadav, r/o village Belori Chowk, P.S. Mufassil
Ranipatra, Distt. Purnia.
32. Bankim Chandra Singh, s/o Bhairav Prasad Singh, r/o village Thahra, P.S.
Purnia East, Distt. Purnia.
33. Nasreen Praveen, w/o Md. Yahiya, r/o village Kola, P.S. Maranga, Distt.
Purnia.
34. Noorjahan, d/o Md. Khursheed Alam, r/o village Ramghat, P.S. Ranipatra,
Distt. Purnia.
35. Shanaz Begum, d/o Md. Yaqub Ali, r/o village Jaigachhi, P.S. Ranipatra,
Distt. Purnia.
36. Nazia Praween, d/o Md. Rafat Ali, r/o village Banbhag, P.S. K. Hat, Distt.
Purnia.
37. Wazda Tabassum, d/o Md. Rafat Ali, r/o village Rangpura, P.S. Dhamdhu,
Distt. Purnia.
38. Zeenat Praween, d/o Abid Ali, r/o village Primary School Chakla, Block K.
Nagar, Distt. Purnia.
39. Rubeda Khatoon, d/o Ansur Rahman, r/o village Chapi, P.S. Rautara, Distt.
Katihar.
40. Md. Ziaur Rahman, s/o Md. Murtaza, r/o village Jiagachhi, P.S. Ranipatra,
Distt. Purnia.
41. Vishakha Mehta, d/o Brahamdeo Mehta, r/o village Sipahi Tola Chunapur
Road, P.S. K. Hat, Distt. Purnia
42. Santra Devi, d/o Ram Sanchi Ram, r/o village Kuddi, P.S. Chand, Distt.
Kaimur (Bhabhua), Distt. Purnia.
43. Bandana Devi, d/o Shobha Kant Jha, r/o village Chunapur Airport, P.S. K.
Hat, Distt. Purnia.
44. Mehrun Nisa, d/o Afzal Hussain, r/o village Law Kund, P.S. Ranipatra,
Distt. Purnia.
45. Yasmeen Praween, w/o Md. Sajjad, r/o village Madhopara, P.S. K. Hat,
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
9/34
Distt. Purnia.
46. Mimbra Khatoon, d/o Md. Sanaullah, r/o village Chapee, P.S. Rautara,
Distt. Katihar.
47. Amitesh Sharan Sinha, s/o Shashi Bhushan Prasad.
48. Nilu Kumari, w/o Amitesh Sharan Sinha.
49. Bimla Kumari, w/o Manoj Kumar.
Sl. No. 47 to 49 are resident of village Shanti Villa, Near Shivshakti Nursery,
Kalam Bagh Road, P/S. & Distt. Muzaffarpur.
.... .... Petitioners
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of
Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director Primary Education, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director SCERT, Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Purnea.
5. The District Education Officer, Darbhanga.
6. The District Education Officer, Kaimur at Bhabua.
7. The District Education Officer, Katihar.
.... .... Respondents
===========================================================
Appearance :
(In all cases)
For the Petitioners : Mr. Y.V.Giri, Senior Advocate
Mr. Satish Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Mr. Firoz Ahmad, Advocate
For the Respondents : Mr. Lalit Kishore, PAAG
Mr. Roy Shivajee Nath, AAG-3
Mr. Prabhat Kumar Verma, AAG-5
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
and
HONOURABLE JUSTICE SMT. ANJANA MISHRA
JUDGMENT AND ORDER
C.A.V.
(Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE)
Date: 05-08-2016
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
10/34
By Notification, dated, 01.07.2006, issued by the
Human Resources Development Department, Government of
Bihar, the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and
Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as
„the 2006 Rules‟), came into force and pursuant thereto, an
advertisement was published calling for applications for
appointment as teachers of primary and middle schools in the
State of Bihar. In response to the advertisement, the
petitioners herein applied.
2. Under the 2006 Rules, the modalities and the
conditions of service were that Trained Block Teachers and
Panchayat Teachers would be employed on the fixed pay of
Rs. 5,000/- per month; whereas Untrained Block Teachers
and Panchayat Teachers would be employed on the fixed pay
of Rs. 4,000/- per month. The conditions of service, embodied
in 2006 Rules, envisaged that after every three years, there
would be an evaluation test and based on the result of the
said evaluation, a trained teacher would receive, if he
succeeded, an increment of Rs.500/- and an untrained teacher
would receive, on such evaluation, if he succeeded, an
increment of Rs.300/- per month. The conditions of service,
embodied in 2006 Rules, also envisaged that the teachers,
appointed under the said notification, would remain in
employment till the age of 60 years.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016
11/34
3. Following the selection process aforementioned,
the petitioners were employed as Primary Teachers.
4. The 2006 Rules came to be amended by the Bihar
Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service
Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2009 ((hereinafter referred
to as „the 2009 Rules), contained in Notification, dated
03.07.2009, issued by the Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar.
5. Under the amended sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 12 of 2009 Rules, which superseded sub-Rule (iii) of Rule 12 of the 2006 Rules, the evaluation test, as prescribed in respect of Primary Teachers, were to be held, after every three years the total evaluation test being two. The pass mark for the candidates of general category was minimum 45%; whereas, the pass mark for reserved category candidates was minimum 40%.
6. Under 2009 Rules, those teachers, who failed to obtain requisite marks in the evaluation test, were not to be given increment, but they were to be given one more chance for re-evaluation after six months for making improvement in their marks and, upon reevaluation, the teachers, securing less than the prescribed minimum marks, were to be removed from service by the employer.
Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 12/34
7. 2009 Rules came to be challenged before this Court by way of a writ petition made under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However, the writ petition was dismissed by a Division Bench of this Court on 01.12.2009 (See : Dr. Sushil Kumar v. State of Bihar, reported in (2010(1) PLJR
277).
8. What is necessary to bear in mind is that though the writ petition, which gave rise to Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), was dismissed, the Court did take notice of the fact that it had been submitted by way of an affidavit by the State, in the writ petition, that after three years evaluation test would be held again, but this evaluation test would be only for the purposes of awarding second consolidated increase in pay to those, who would be successful by securing minimum marks, but those, who failed to get the minimum marks, would not be removed from service on this ground.
9. 2006 Rules came to be, once again, amended by Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2012 Rules‟) and the same came into force by Notification, dated 03.04.2012. Rule 15(Kha)(i) of 2012 Rules, which is pari materia with Rule 12(iii) of 2009 Rules, envisaged that teachers appointed, pursuant to 2006 Rules, would be evaluated as regards their merit in the manner prescribed by Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 13/34 2006 Rules. Based upon such evaluation, candidates of general category, securing minimum 45%, and candidates of reserved category, securing minimum 40%, would be given, after three years of their employment, one-time increment of Rs.500/- for trained teachers and Rs.300/- for untrained teachers.
10. Rule 15(Kha)(ii) of 2012 Rules prescribed that thereafter, the trained teachers would be given yearly increment of Rs.170/- and untrained teacher would be given yearly increment of Rs.100/- every year on their fixed salary. Rule 15(Kha)(ii) of 2012 Rules further envisaged that the teachers, who failed to secure the minimum prescribed marks, would not be given increment. Teachers of general category, securing less than 45%, and candidates of reserved category, securing less than 40%, would be given one more chance for improvement. On second evaluation, teachers, securing less than minimum prescribed marks, would be terminated from service by their employer after seeking explanation from them.
11. Notwithstanding what has been indicated above, by Notification, dated 08.09.2015, 2006 Rules, for the third time, came to be amended by Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) (Amendment) Rules, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as „the 2015 Rules‟). In Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 14/34 terms of Rule 15(Kha), so amended by 2015 Rules, teachers, employed in terms of 2006 Rules, shall have to pass evaluation test, prescribed by the Human Resources Development Department, and, for this purpose, they would be given two chances and that the benefit of increment shall be available to those teachers, who pass in the first chance, from the date of completion of service of three years and to the teachers, who pass in the second chance, from the date, when they qualify in the evaluation test. The teachers of general category shall be required to obtain 45% marks in order to pass in the evaluation test and the teachers, who fall in reserved category, shall have to obtain 40% marks in order to pass the evaluation test.
12. More importantly, Rule 15(kha)(iv) of 2015 Rules stipulates that the teachers, who do not pass in both the evaluation tests, shall be given one more chance, i.e., third chance, but the benefit of increment shall be payable to the teachers, who pass in third chance, from the date of passing the test.
13. Most Importantly, Rule 15(Kha)(v) of 2015 Rules stipulates that the teachers, who do not pass in all the three evaluation tests, shall be removed from service.
14. With the help of this set of writ petitions, the petitioners, who have been appointed under 2006 Rules as Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 15/34 primary teachers, have put to challenge Rule 15(iii) of 2009 Rules and Rule 15(kha)(iii) of 2012 Rules.
15. However, by way of I.A. No. 5315 of 2016, the petitioners herein have also challenged the validity of Rules 15(kha)(iv) and 15(kha)(v) of 2015 Rules and seek accordingly declaration from this Court that Rule 15(iii) of 2009 Rules, Rule 15(kha)(iii) of 2012 Rules and 15(kha) (iv) and 15(kha)(v) of 2015 Rules are ultra vires and are contrary to the service conditions embodied in 2006 Rules.
16. We have heard Mr. Y. V. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appearing for the petitioners, and Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, appearing for the respondents.
17. It is submitted, on behalf of the petitioners, that the petitioners were appointed as Primary Teachers in different primary schools pursuant to the advertisement issued in the year 2006 and, in the light of the provisions of 2006 Rules, the petitioners would superannuate on attaining the age of 60 years and, under no circumstance, therefore, their services can be terminated before completing 60 years merely on the ground that they have failed in any of the evaluation test inasmuch as, the evaluation test, under 2006 Rules, was conceived only for the purpose of giving increment to the appointed teachers and not for the purpose of taking away Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 16/34 their services.
18. Having been, thus, according to Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, appointed on the basis of the conditions of service, as incorporated in 2006 Rules, the petitioners must be retained in service till the age of 60 years and the service conditions could not have been, at this stage, validly changed to their disadvantage, particularly, when the petitioners have a vested right to continue in service till the age of 60 years in terms of the conditions of service as incorporated in 2006 Rules.
19. It is reiterated by Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, that so far as 2006 Rules were concerned, it did not envisage termination of service or removal of an employed teacher if he failed to pass in the evaluation test inasmuch as the evaluation test, under 2006 Rules, was meant only for the purpose of enabling a person to receive increment and nothing more.
20. It is also pointed out by Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, that when an attempt was made, under 2009 Rules, to remove a primary teacher, if he failed in evaluation test twice, this was challenged by way of a writ petition, which gave rise to the decision in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra) and though the decision, in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), is sought to be relied upon by the respondents in support of Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 17/34 their case for making the present impugned amendments, the fact remains that the decision, in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), was given, because of the concession by the State inasmuch as it is specifically recorded, at paragraph 14, in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), that the learned Additional Advocate General submitted before the Court that even if a primary teacher failed for the second time in the evaluation test, he would not be removed from service and the Court, therefore, took the view that no cause survived for determination.
21. Assailing the 2015 Rules, Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, submits that though the State did not succeed in imposing the condition of removal from service by making 2009 Rules, it has attempted to do the same thing by amending the 2006 Rules with the help of 2012 Rules and, later on, by 2015 Rules inasmuch as 2012 Rules, inter alia, envisaged that teachers, securing less than minimum prescribed marks, on second evaluation, would be terminated from service by their employer after seeking explanation from them.
22. Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, submits that 2015 Rules, now, stipulates that if a primary teacher fails for the third time in the evaluation test, his service would be terminated. This condition, imposed by virtue of impugned Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 18/34 Rules 15(Kha)(iv) and (v), is, according to Mr. Giri, not at all sustainable in law inasmuch this would take away the vested right of the petitioners to remain in service till the age of 60 years in terms of the service conditions as stood incorporated in 2006 Rules.
23. It is the submission of Mr. Giri, learned Senior Counsel, that though a rule may be amended retrospectively, such a retrospective amendment cannot take away the vested right of an employee.
24. Appearing on behalf of the State, Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the issue stands resolved by the decision, in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), inasmuch as the Court has clearly held therein that 2009 Rules cannot be said to be ultra vires inasmuch as the Sate, as an employer, has the power to change the service conditions retrospectively and when the retrospective amendment is in the public interest, such public interest would override or prevail upon an individual‟s interest.
25. It is contended by Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, that the State has kept in mind public interest, while making the impugned amendments to the effect that a teacher would be removed from service if he fails to pass the evaluation test twice. Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 19/34
26. Mr. Lalit Kishore, learned Principal Additional Advocate General, points out that notwithstanding the fact that the Court has, indeed, recorded, in Dr. Sushil Kumar's case (supra), that the State had agreed that it would not terminate the services of teachers, who failed to pass the evaluation test for the second time, the fact remains that at paragraph 15, the Court did uphold that the amendment, sought to be enforced was, being in public interest, valid.
27. In the light of the rival submissions made before us, let us proceed to decide if the impugned amendments are legally sustainable.
28. Can the terms and conditions of service of a Government servant, unlike that of an employee in a private sector, be altered unilaterally by the statutory or constitutional authority concerned? If so, whether such alteration can be made with retrospective effect and if so, what is the extent of such powers? Will the power to amend the conditions of service retrospectively include the power to take away or abridge, with retrospective effect, those rights, which have already accrued to a Government employee under the existing rules and before the amendment was introduced ?
29. Before entering into the merit of the various submissions made, on behalf of the parties, it is, to our mind, appropriate to ascertain the legal aspects of the law, which Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 20/34 govern the case of the parties concerned.
30. While considering the above aspect of the matter, it is necessary to bear in mind that though the employment of a Government employee and the employment of a person in a private sector is, originally, contractual in nature, what distinguishes a Government employee from others is that a Government employee acquires, on his appointment to a Government office, a status.
31. As a result of the status, which a government servant so acquires, his service conditions are determined on the basis of the relevant provisions of the Constitution, the relevant statute and rules. In consequence thereof, a Government servant's rights and obligations can be determined by the statutory or the constitutional authority concerned and, for such exercise of powers, the authority concerned does not, unlike the case of a private employee, require consent from the Government employee concerned.
32. In other words, Government can, unilaterally, alter terms and conditions of its employees, though, in practice, such alteration may face protest from the employees concerned. This does not, however, mean, I must hasten to add, that the consent of the Government employee is a condition precedent for changing the terms and conditions of his service by the statutory or constitutional authority in terms Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 21/34 of the provisions of the relevant statutes and/or the Constitution. A reference may be made, in this regard, to the case State of Jammu & Kashmir v. T.N. Khosa (AIR 1074 SC 1) wherein the Supreme Court held thus:
"It is well settled that though employment under the Government like that under any other master may have a contractual origin, the Government servant acquires a 'status' on appointment to his office. As a result, his rights and obligations are liable to be determined under statutory or constitutional authority which, for its exercise, requires no reciprocal consent. The Government can alter the terms and conditions of its employees unilaterally and through in modern times consensus in matters relating to public services is often attempted to be achieved consent is not a pre-condition of the validity of rules of service, the contractual origin of the service notwithstanding."
(Emphasis is added )
33. What follows from the above is that the service conditions of a Government employee can be changed by making changes in the relevant statutes or rules by the statutory or constitutional authority concerned in terms of the statute and/or the Constitution. This power to alter conditions of service, undoubtedly, includes the power to alter the Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 22/34 conditions of service with retrospective effect. Such a broadly stated position of law governing the status of a Government employee is, however, subject to the condition that the benefits, acquired with regard to the conditions of service, by virtue of the relevant existing statutory or constitutional provisions, cannot, with retrospective effect, be taken away, abridge or withdrawn by amending 'the statute concerned and/or the Constitution nor can such amendments be allowed if such amendment is arbitrary, discriminatory, unreasonable or violative of Articles 14 and 16 inasmuch as by acquiring such benefit, the employee is vested with a right and such a right cannot be taken away by a mere change in the statute or the rules with retrospective effect.
34. While considering the above aspect of the matter, the observations of the Supreme Court, in Tushar Ranjan Mohanty (supra), reported in (1994) 5 SCC 450 may be referred to, and borne in mind, which run as follows : -
"12. In T.R. Kapur v. State of Haryana (AIR 1987 SC 415) three petitioners, T.R. Kapur, Mahinder Singh and V.D. Grover, who were Diploma holders, were working as Sub Divisional Officers on regular basis under the unamended Rule 6(b) of the Punjab Service of Engineers Class-I, Public Works Department (Irrigation Branch) Rules, 1964. They were eligible for promotion as Executive. Engineer in Class-I service despite the fact that they did not possess a degree in Engineering. By the Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 23/34 notification, dated 22.6.1984, Rule 6(b) was amended and it was provided that a degree in Engineering was an essential qualification for promotion as Assistant Engineers (Irrigation Branch) to Class-I service and thereby the petitioners were rendered ineligible for promotion to the post of Executive Engineer in Class-I service. The amendment was challenged in this court by way of a petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. This Court came to the conclusion that the retrospective effect given to the amendment was violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India on the following reasoning : (SCC p. 595, Para 16).
"It is well settled that the power to frame Rules to regulate the conditions of service under the proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution carries with it the power to amend or altered the Rules with a retrospective effect: B.S. Vedera v. Union of India (AIR 1969 SC 118), Raj Kumar v. Union of India (AIR 1975 SC 1116), K. Nagaraj v. State of A.P. AIR 1985 SC 551) and State of J&K v. Triloki Nath Khosa (AIR 1974 SC 1). It is equally well settled that any Rule which affects the right of a person to be considered for promotion is a condition of service although mere chances of promotion may not be. It may further be stated that an authority competent to lay down qualification for promotion, is also competent to change the qualifications. The Rules defining qualifications and suitability for promotion are conditions of service and they can be changed retrospectively. This Rule is however subject to a Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 24/34 well recognised principle that the benefit acquired under the existing Rules can not be taken away by an amendment with retrospective effect, that is to say, there is no power to make such a Rule under the proviso to Article 309 which affects or impairs vested rights".
13. Finally this Court considered the effect of retrospective legislation on the vested rights of the affected person, in P.D. Agarwal v. State of U.P. (AIR 1969 SC 118), under the U.P. Service of Engineer (Buildings and Roads branch) Class-II Rules, 1936, the Assistant Engineers substantively appointed against temporary vacancies became members of the service and were entitled to seniority on the basis of continuous length of service. The Rules were amended in the years 1969 and 1971, wherein it was provided that the Assistant Engineers would only become members, when they are selected and appointed against the quota meant for them and their seniority would be determined only for the date of order of appointment in substantive vacancies. These amendments were made with retrospective effect thereby taking away the vested rights of the Assistant Engineers appointed against temporary posts. The High Court held that the retrospective amendment of the Rules to be arbitrary and unconstitutional. This Court held the judgment of the High Court on the following reasoning : (SCC p. 637, Para 16; p. 638, Para-18; p. 639, Para-18).
"It has been urged that Government has the power to amend Rules retrospectively and such Rules are quite valid. Several decisions have been Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 25/34 cited of this Court at the bar. Undoubtedly, the Government has got the power under proviso to Article 309 of the Constitution to make Rules and amend the Rules giving retrospective effect. Nevertheless, such retrospective amendments can not take away the vested rights and the amendments must be reasonable, not arbitrary or discriminatory violating Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution."
35. From a close reading of the law laid down in Tushar Ranjan Mohanty (supra), it becomes evident that the power to frame rules to regulate conditions of service under the provisions of Article 309 carries with it the power to amend or alter the rules with retrospective effect. This rule is, however, subject to well recognised principle that the benefit acquired under the existing rule or a right vested in a Government employee under the existing rules cannot be taken away by amending the rules with retrospective effect, for, there is no power, under the proviso to Article 309, enabling the Government to make rule in a manner so as to take away or impaire an accrued or vested right.
36. That the conditions of service can be amended even with the retrospective effect is too well settled to be doubted. In the case of K. Nagraj (supra), the Supreme Court has made it clear that such a power flows to the Government under the proviso to Article 309 read with Article 313 of the Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 26/34 Constitution and that the power so conferred on the Government is legislative in character and is to be distinguished from an ordinary rule-making power.
37. We may, for the sake of brevity, refer to some observations made, in this regard, in K. Nagraj (supra), which read, thus : It is well settled that the service rules can be as much amended, as they can be made, under the proviso to Article 309 and that the power to amend these rules carried with it the power to amend them retrospectively. The power conferred by the proviso to Article 309 is of a legislative character and is to be distinguished from an ordinary rule- making power, The power to legislate is of a plenary nature within the field demarcated by the Constitution and it includes the power to legislate retrospectively. Therefore, the amendment made to the Fundamental Rules in the exercise of power conferred by Article 309, by which the proviso to Rule 2 was deleted retrospectively, was a valid exercise of legislative power. The rules and amendments, made under the proviso to Article 309, can be altered or repealed by the legislature, but until that is done, the exercise of the power can not be challenged as lacking in authority. (See B.S. Vedera (supra) Raj Kumar (supra): (See AIR 1975 SC 1116 at p. 1118)."
38. What logically follows from the above discussion is that unlike an employee in a private sector, a Government Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 27/34 employee's terms and conditions of service are governed by the relevant statutes, rules and provisions of the Constitution. Such conditions of service can be, unilaterally, changed by the constitutional or statutory authority concerned. Such a change can even be made with retrospective effect; but benefits acquired or a right, which has accrued or comes to be vested in a Government employee by virtue of the existing rules, cannot be impaired, far less, taken away by amending the conditions of service with retrospective effect. Whether an amendment, with retrospective effect, has taken away an accrued or vested right is, however, essentially a mixed question of fact and law and can be determined on the basis of the facts of a given case.
39. In the light of the law that we have discussed above, let us take the case at hand. While reverting to the facts of the case at hand, what attract the attention, most prominently, is that under 2006 Rules, evaluation test was for the purpose of granting increments to trained as well as untrained teachers.
40. Coupled with the above, 2006 Rules, no doubt, prescribed the age of retirement as 60 years. Does it mean that the petitioners have, under 2006 Rules, vested right to remain in service till the age of 60 years on the same terms and conditions as have been incorporated in 2006 Rules at a Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 28/34 time when the said Rules were brought into force by Notification, dated 01.07.2016? The answer to this question has to be emphatic „no‟, the reason being that the prescribed age of retirement, as had been envisaged by 2006 Rules, being a condition of service, can be, and could have been altered, unilaterally by the State Government. This position of law cannot be in doubt in the light of the Supreme Court‟s decision in K. Nagraj's Case (supra).
41. Since there is no vested right in any employee to remain in service for a period of 60 years, the question, which confronts us is : whether the impugned Rules are bad in law, when it provides for termination of services of a teacher if he fails in evaluation test for the third time. The answer to this vital question has to be in the negative inasmuch as it is in public interest to have such persons as teachers, who are competent and capable of teaching, educating and thereby building up character and career of a student, more particularly, at the primary or middle school level. If the foundation of the education at the primary or the middle school level is not of the required standard, the result would be disastrous. It is for this reason that we are clearly of the view, in the light of the decision in K. Nagraj (supra) and Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra) that the impugned provisions are reasonable and cannot be assailed as ultra vires or contrary to law. Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 29/34
42. We need to point out that when the petitioners were born as teachers by virtue of the Notification, dated 01.07.2006, on coming into force of 2006 Rules, what is of immense importance to note is that on the very enforcement of these Rules, the petitioners cannot be said to have been vested with right to demand that the evaluation test shall always remain merely for the purpose of granting increment and not for the purpose of deciding if the petitioners have any utility as teachers at the primary or middle school level, where they have to lay the foundation and build the basic structure of the young persons to become good students and good human beings in time to come. It is in this perspective that the decision of the Division Bench of this Court, in Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra), needs to be read.
43. When read in the above perspective, it is noticed that the Division Bench observed, speaking through Shiva Kirti Singh, J. (as his Lordship then was) at paragraph 11, thus :
"11. On the other hand, in the case of Roshan Lal (supra) even in teeth of Articles 309,310 and 311 of the Constitution of India the Supreme Court held that terms of service can be altered unilaterally by the Government and there is no vested contractual right for the servant. In the case of Chairman, Railway Board Vrs. C.R. Ranga Dhamaiah reported in (1997) 6 SCC 623 after noticing some earlier judgments in paragraph-20, the Court held that a rule, which operates in future, so as to Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 30/34 govern future rights of those already in service cannot be assailed on the ground of retroactivity as being violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution, but if the rule reverses from an anterior date, a benefit, which has been granted or availed of e.g. promotion or pay-scale, it can be assailed on the grounds of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution to the extent it operates retrospectively. The case of L. Muthu Kumar Vs. State of Tamil Nadu, reported in 2000 (7) SCC 618, appears to be on a different but related issue.
On the subject of Education and Public Interest the Court held that public interest must be placed above the personal interest of individuals and therefore ill-trained teachers or those coming from derecognized or unrecognized institutions cannot be allowed or licensed to teach children of impressionable ages. It was indicated that in such a situation, national interest would be at stake."
(Emphasis is supplied)
44. From the observations made above and the conclusions reached, in Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra), it becomes clear that the Division Bench did take note of the fact that in the light of the law, laid down by the Supreme Court, the terms and conditions of the service of a teacher can be altered unilaterally by the Government and there is no vested contractual right in the employee. The Division Bench also pointed out that, in L. Muthu Kumar (supra), the Supreme Court, on the subject of education and public interest, has held Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 31/34 that public interest must be placed above personal interest of individuals and, therefore, ill-trained teachers or those coming from derecognized or unrecognized Institution cannot be allowed or licensed to teach the children of impressionable ages inasmuch as national interest would, in such a situation, be at stake.
45. Taking note of the proposition of law that conditions of service can be altered unilaterally with retrospective effect except when such an alteration attempts to take away the vested right of an employee, the Division Bench held, in no uncertain words " ....that the State has legal competence to make provisions as contained in the rule, in question, and the contention advanced on behalf of the Petitioners have no merit." These observations make it abundantly clear that as far as the decision of Division Bench, in Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra), is concerned, it categorically held that the change, which had been brought by amendments introduced by 2009 Rules, making failure of a teacher to pass the second evaluation test as a ground for termination of his services, is a valid condition of service.
46. Having categorically held that the case brought by the petitioners against the introduction of 2009 Rules had no merit, the Division Bench, in Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra), took into account the change in the stand of the Government Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 32/34 that when the evaluation test would be held after three years, it would be only for the purpose of awarding second consolidated increment in pay to those, who would succeed, but those, who failed to get the minimum marks, would not be removed from service on the ground of having failed in the evaluation test.
47. Notwithstanding the fact that the Division Bench has, in Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra), pointed out that the State Government had, with the help of supplementary counter affidavit, conveyed its decision not to terminate the services of a teacher if he failed in second evaluation test, the fact remains that the Division Bench did not find 2009 Rules suffering from any infirmity.
48. Coupled with above, desirability of 2009 Rules was also upheld by the Division Bench, in Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra), by taking note of the fact that there exists a bona fide apprehension in the mind of the State that in many cases, the selection process was not fully satisfactory and, hence, incompetent persons, unfit to teach young children, might have come into service as Panchayat Teachers and, therefore, the amendments, which had been questioned by the petitioners, is designed to act as one time filter for the inefficient and incompetent persons, who might have somehow entered into service. Leaving no one in doubt, the Division Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 33/34 Bench observed, in Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra), that the amendment suffers from no illegality and serves a laudable public interest. It will cause no harm to anyone who has a minimum level of competence as a teacher.
49. The picture, which finally emerges with the introduction of the impugned amendments made by 2012 and 2015 Rules, is that if the persons, situated as the petitioners are, fail to pass the third evaluation test, their services would be terminated. In the light of the decision of this Court, in Dr. Sushil Kumar (supra), we do not find that impugned Rules suffer from any such constitutional or legal infirmity, which warrants interference by this Court in exercise of its extra- ordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
50. In short, therefore, we find no merit in these writ petitions and these writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.
51. However, there shall be no order as to cost.
52. Before parting with these writ petitions, we may make it clear that it would remain open to the State Government to make amendment(s) in the Rules providing further chances to the teachers, who may have come to be appointed following the selection process pursuant to the notification, dated 01.07.2006 aforementioned, bringing into Patna High Court CWJC No.10187 of 2016 dt. 05.08.2016 34/34 force 2006 Rules.
53. Interim direction, if any, passed in these cases, shall stand vacated.
(I. A. Ansari, CJ) Anjana Mishra, J I agree.
(Anjana Mishra, J) Jagdish/-
AFR/NAFR A.F.R. CAV DATE 15.07.2016 Uploading Date 09.08.2016 Transmission Date