Patna High Court
Nageshwar Thakur And Bhagwat Sharan ... vs State Of Bihar And Ors. on 5 January, 1977
Equivalent citations: 1977(25)BLJR82
JUDGMENT B.P. Jha, J.
1. I shall dispose of these two C.W.J.C. Nos. 1339/74 and 1562/75 by a common judgment.
2. The common point arises for consideration in both these petitions are whether Acharyas are entitled to get special Pay-scale of M.A. Trained teacher in the High School?
It is conceded by the counsel of both the parties that 'Acharyas' are treated at par with M.A. In this connection learned Counsel for the petitioners relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Rampalit Vyakaran Acharya v. Punjab University . It is relevant here to quote paragraph 8 of the judgment.
That Acharya is equivalent to M.A. is clear from the Government of India, Ministry of Education to Education secretaries of all the State Government/Union Territory Governments/Administrations and Registrars of all Universities on the subject of equivalence of Sanskrit Examinations as given in an enclosed statement. Entry 21 in column 1 of that statement mentions the Punjab University, Chandigarh, where Shashtri is shown as equivalent to B.A. and Acharya to M.A. It is significant to note from the fetter of the Ministry of Education that Government is keen regarding development of Sanskrit in the country and it has impressed upon all the Universities 'that they should employ at least Me traditional Sanskrit Scholar and the scholar so employed should enjoy the same status and pay-scales as his counter-parts trained on modern lines with equivalent degrees". It goes on further to say "that the employment of traditional Sankrit Pandits in High/Higher secondary Schools/Colleges should also be given the due encouragement. Teachers so employed should be treated on par with other teachers possessing equivalent qualifications of the general educational set up.
3. Now the admitted position is that "Acharya" examination is treated equivalent to M.A. in Sanskrit. In C.W.J.C. 1339/74, the petitioner-Nageshwar Thakur passed the Acharya Examination in Sanskrit with Vyakaran as special subject. In C.W.J.C. 1562/75, the petitioner--Bhagwat Sharan Tripathy passed the Acharya examination in Sanskrit with Sahitya as special subject. It is, therefore, clear that both these petitioners will be treated at par with M.A. These two petitioners also claim that they have passed training courses in Education.
4. I shall first take up C.W.J.C. 1339/74. The petitioner passed Acharya examination in Sanskrit with Vyakaran as special subject in 1957 from the Sanskrit Association Bihar. He was appointed as Assistant-teacher in Tulsidas High School Sisai and he joined the High School on 13th May 1961. In 1962 he passed the Dip-in-Ed. examination from Teachers' Training College Ranchi. His grievance is that he should be given special pay of M.A trained teacher, in preference to Dwarka Pd. (respondent No. 8) passed the training examination in 1971. By virtue of Annexure-16 the District Education Officer, Ranchi, granted him to get the special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher. The petitioner has prayed for quashing Annexure-16.
The grievance, of the petitioner is that though he passed training examination earlier to Dwarka Prasad, yet the Board did not grant him the special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher. In my opinion, there is force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner. Respondent No. 8 has not filed any counter-affidavit in this case. Hence I hold that the allegations made in the writ petition are correct. It is clear from the averment of the petition that the petitioner passed Dip-in-Ed. examination in 1962. If it is so, the claim of the petitioner was superior to the claim of respondent No. 8 Dwarka Prasad. Hence I quash Annexure-16 and1 remand the case back to the Board for fresh consideration in the light of the quidelines mentioned below.
5. I shall now take up C.W.J.C. No. 1562/75. The Petitioner-Bhagwaat Sharan Tripathy after passing the Sashtri examination obtained training degree in Sansdrit from the Government Sanskrit College Varanasi. He also passed the Acharya examination in Sanskrit with Sahitya as special subject in the year 1956 from the Government Sanskrit College Varanasi. He also prays that he is entitled to the special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher. He was appointed as an Assistant teacher in Bijaipur co-operative High School and he joined the High School on 25th June, 1956. In this writ petition he prays for quashing Annexure-8. By virtue of Annexure-8 the Board granted the special pay-scale to Raja Ram Singh (respondent No. 6). It is this Annexure which has been challenged before this Court.
6. The case of Bhagwat Sharan Tripathy is that the Managing Committee reselved on 28th October, 1966 (Anhexure-3) that he was entitled to get the special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher as he was the only M.A. trained teacher available at that time in the High School. The Managing Committee also recommended to the Board that the petitioner was entitled to get special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher. I have been informed by the counsel for the petitioner that the matter is still pending before the Board. I have been informed by the counsel of the petitioner that Raja Ram Singh (respondent No. 6) passed the M.A. examination the year 1968. The petitioner claims that he is entitled to get the special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher as he is, admittedly, senior to Raja Ram Singh. Learned Counsel for the petitioner also submits that the petitioner passed the training examination earlier to respondent No. 6. These facts have not been controverted by Raja Ram Singh. Hence on the materials on the record, it is clear that the petitioner passed the training examination earlier to respondent No. 6. In this circumstance I quash Annexure-8. I am remanding the case hack to Board to consider the case of the petitioner on the basis of the guidelines given below:
(1) The Board in directed to grant special pay scale of M.A. trained teacher on the basis of the seniority-cum-merit.
(2) If there are more than one M.A. trained teachers in any High School, the Board shall give the special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher to that person who has passed earlier the training examination.
(3) While giving the. Special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher the Board will consider the case on the basis of the seniority. If there are two M.A. trained teachers, in a High School and if one of them has passed the training examination earlier to other, the Board will give the special pay-scale to the person who has passed the training examination earlier.
(4) The Board can depart from the, rule of seniority only on the ground that the senior teacher is not a competent teacher and not otherwise. If the Board finds that the senior teacher is incompetent then the Board will be entitled to give the special pay-scale to other trained teacher who in the opinion or the Board in a competent one. In my opinion the following teachers will be deemed to be incompetent.
(1) If he does not attend the school regularly.
(2) If he indulges in politics and agitation.
(3) If he does not possess qualification as required by law.
(4) If he is not a disciplined teacher. The Board can verify the competency of a teacher on the basis of the report received from the District Education Officer. If the report discloses any such disqualifications the Board will be entitled to give the special pay-scale to any other teachers who is not a senior teacher. In other words, the Board will consider every case on the basis of seniority-cum-merit. Ordinarily, special pay-scale should be given on the basis of the seniority in training. The Board will not give special pay-scale to senior teacher only if it is found on the material on the record that he is an incompetent person. Otherwise in other cases the senior person shall be entitled to get the special pay-scale of M.A. trained teacher, Acharyas will be treated at par with M.A. If the Acharyas are trained teachers then the Board will not differentiate between M.A. trained teachers and Acharyas trained teachers. I direct the Board to consider the case of special pay-scale hence forward on the basis of these guideline.
7. I remand these two petitions to Board to decide these Cases on the basis of the guidelines given above.
8. In the result C.W.J.C. No. 1339/74 is allowed and Annexure-16 is quashed C.W.J.C. No. 1562/75 is allowed and Annexure-8 is quashed. There will be, however no order as to costs.