Jharkhand High Court
The State Of Jharkhand vs Gopal Mahamarik Son Of Shri Hira Lal ... on 3 May, 2018
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: Amitav K. Gupta, D.N. Patel
-1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
L.P.A. No.357 of 2016
With
I.A. No.5207 of 2016
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, School Education and Literacy
Department, (Erstwhile Human Resources Development
Department), Government of Jharkhand, At - Project
Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi, Jharkhand.
3. The Director, Primary Education, School Education and
Literacy Department, (Erstwhile Human Resources
Development Department), Government of Jharkhand, At
- Project Building, P.O. & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist. Ranchi,
Jharkhand.
4. The Deputy Commissioner, Godda, At, P.O., P.S.- Godda,
Dist. - Godda, Jharkhand.
5. The District Superintendent of Education, Godda, At,
P.O., P.S.- Godda, Dist. - Godda, Jharkhand.
..... Appellants
Versus
Gopal Mahamarik Son of Shri Hira Lal Mahamarik,
Resident of village - Pasai, P.O. & P.S. - Poraiyahat, Dist. -
Godda, Jharkhand ..... Respondent
With
L.P.A. No.382 of 2013
1. The Director, Primary cum Secondary Education, Project
Bhawan, HEC Township, P.O & P.S. Dhurwa, Dist Ranchi.
2. The Regional Deputy Director, Department of Education,
South Chhotanagpur Division, Kuthcery Road, P.O. & P.S.
Kotwali Dist Ranchi.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, East
Singhbhum, P.O. & PS. Sakchi, Jamshepur, Dist East
Singhbhum ..... Appellants
Versus
Srimati Kumari Wife of Sri Laxman Das Resident of Sonari
B Block, P.O. & P.S. Sonari, Jamshedpur Dist West
Singhbhum ..... Respondent
With
L.P.A. No.265 of 2014
With
I.A. No.903 of 2017
With
I.A. No.4153 of 2017
With
I.A. No.5649 of 2014
With
I.A. No.5653 of 2014
-2-
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development
Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, At Project Building, Dhurwa,
P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi
3. The Director (Secondary Education), Human Resources
Development Dept., Govt. of Jharkhand, At Project
Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa, Dist. - Ranchi.
4. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Singhbhum
(West) at Chaibasa, P.O., P.S. - Chaibasa, Dist. -
Singhbhum West, Jharkhand
5. The District Education Officer, Saraikela - Kharsawan,
P.O., P.S. - Saraikella - Kharsawan Dist. - West
Singhbhum, Jharkhand ..... Appellants
Versus
Bhagirathi Prasad Dey, Son of Late Dilip Kumar Dey,
Resident of village - Ditsahi, P.O. & P.S. - Kharsawn, Dist. -
Saraikella - Kharsawan ..... Respondent
---------
CORAM: HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
---------
For the Appellants : Mr. Atanu Banerjee, G.A. Mr. Abhijit Kr. Singh, J.C to A.G. Mr. Suman Ghosh, J.C to G.A. (In all three appeals) For the Respondents : Mrs. Ritu Kumar, Advocate Mr. S. B. Deo, Advocate, Mr. Vikash Kumar, Advocate Mr. Dharmendra Kumar, Advocate Ms. Shatakshi, Advocate (In L.P.A. No.357 of 2016) Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate (In L.P.A. No.382 of 2013) Mrs. M. M. Pal, Sr. Advocate Mrs. Shubha Jha, Advocate (In L.P.A. No.265 of 2014)
---------
rd 09/Dated: 3 May, 2018 Oral Order Per D.N. Patel, A.C.J
1. All these three Letters Patent Appeals have been preferred by the State Government. L.P.A. No.357 of 2016 has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 22.12.2014 -3- in W.P.(S) No.4873 of 2006, L.P.A. No.382 of 2013 has been preferred against the judgment and order delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 12.03.2013 in W.P.(S) No.3344 of 2008, and L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 has been preferred against the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge dated 30.07.2013 in writ petition being W.P. (S) No.2005 of 2013, disposed of along with I.A. No.4107 of 2013. The issues involved, being similar in nature, all these Letters Patent Appeal have been heard together and are being disposed by this common judgment and order.
2. Factual Matrix :-
● The sole respondent of L.P.A. 357 of 2016 (original petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 4873 of 2006) has cleared "Senior Teachers Training Course" from All India Education Society, Kolkata, whereas in rest two Letters Patent Appeals, i.e., L.P.A. No. 382 of 2013 and L.P.A. No. 265 of 2014, the respondents, who are original petitioners in W.P.(S) No. 3344 of 2008 and W.P.(S) No. 2005 of 2013 respectively, have cleared the said training course from Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata, and these institutions not having been recognised either by the State Government or by any University or by any Statutory Authority, approval of these respondents (teachers) into services was not granted by the State of Jharkhand.
● So far as L.P.A. No.357 of 2016 is concerned, the respondent (original petitioner) was appointed as a -4- teacher in a primary school on 18.08.2005. He has got Senior Teachers Training from All India Educational Society, Kolkata in the year 1991. As it was never recognised by any Government nor by any Statutory Body or any University, just within a period of two months, his appointment was cancelled vide order dated 12.10.2005, as he was not eligible, and hence, the said appointee preferred writ petition being W.P.(S) No.4873 of 2006, which was allowed by the learned Single Judge vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2014, and hence, the State of Jharkhand has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.357 of 2016. ● So far as L.P.A. No.382 of 2013 is concerned, the respondent (original petitioner) was appointed as a teacher on 02.01.1997 in a primary school, managed by Minority. Later on, this respondent (original petitioner) has got his Senior Teachers Training Certificate from Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata, which is also neither recognised by the Government nor by any University nor by any Statutory Body, and hence, show cause notice was given on 15.03.2008 and later on her services were terminated on 22.05.2008, which was under challenge by the respondent in W.P.(S) No.3344 of 2008. The said writ petition having been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 12.03.2013, the State of Jharkhand has preferred the present Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No.382 of 2013.
● So far as L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 is concerned, the -5- respondent (original petitioner) was appointed as an Assistant Teacher on 06.01.1984. He had also cleared Senior Teachers Training from Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata. This teacher was appointed by the Management Committee of the School. Later on, its management was taken over by the Government. Services of this respondent were not approved or recognised by the Government based on the report given by the Alam Committee (three member committee). The report of the Committee reveals that Sister Nivedita College, which has given the teachers training, was neither recognised by the Government nor by any University nor by any Statutory Authority. Based on this report, show cause notice was issued to the respondent and later on, his services having been terminated by the State Government, the writ petition was preferred by the said teacher being W.P.(S) No.2005 of 2013, which was allowed vide order dated 30.07.2013 and hence, the State of Jharkhand has preferred L.P.A. No.265 of 2014. Reasons :-
3. Having heard counsels for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, we allow these Letters Patent Appeals, mainly for the following facts and reasons:-
I. It appears that time and again this issue has been raised before this Court that there are few schools/ colleges/ institutions, which are working as road side typing classes. They are educating the children, taking -6- examinations and are themselves giving certificates.
These institutions are neither recognised by any Government nor by any University nor by any Statutory Body, whereas for getting a job as a government teacher, what is required, is to get Teachers Training from a "recognised institution".
II. As per Rule 2 (kha) of Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002, it is mandatory for a candidate, who is in search of appointment as a government teacher, to have teachers training either from a school, owned, managed and controlled by the Government, or from a recognised training institution.
For ready reference, Rule 2 (kha) of Jharkhand Primary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2002, reads as under :-
"2 (kha) - 'Trained' means those persons who have obtained following training and have passed from recognised training institutes -
(1) 2 years' training as teacher; or (2) Bed/Diploma in Ed/Diploma in Tech (3) CPEd/DPEd."
(Emphasis supplied) III. As per the aforesaid Rule, a candidate who has got teachers training from a recognised training institution will be eligible for being appointed as a teacher in a primary school. The respondents of L.P.A. No.357 of 2016 and L.P.A. No.382 of 2013, have not cleared their examination from a recognised institution. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.4873 of 2006 and W.P. (S) No.3344 of 2008.
-7-
IV. Now, the question arises that what is the meaning of a recognised training institute. This question has already been answered and the issue has been settled, at a much earlier point of time, by a Division Bench of this Court, in the case of Dilip Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) JCR 293 (Jhr). For ready reference, paragraph nos.5, 31, 36 & 45, read as under :-
"5. The main questions of law, involved in the present cases, are.
(i) Whether the expression "recognised training institute", as mentioned in Rule 3(kha) of the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2002 (hereinafter to be referred as Rules, 2002) means a Training Institute/University, recognised by NCTE or by a Statutory/Regulating Body or by any Government?
(ii) Whether Teachers Training Degree/Diploma/Certificate, obtained by the appellants/petitioners, have been granted by a recognised Training Institute/University, as occurring in Rule 2(kha) of Rules, 2002?
(iii) Whether the Degree/Diploma/ Certificate of Acharyar granted by Kamesh-war Singh Darbhanga Sanskrit Vishwavidyalaya, Darbhanga, Bihar, Laxmi Devi Sarraf Adarsh Sanskrit Mahavidyalaya, Jharkhand, Ranchi;
Certificate of Guidance (C.I.G. for short), granted by Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi; Moallim-E-Urdu, granted by Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh; Shiksha Alankar", granted by Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, are equivalent to Degree/Diploma/Certificate of Teachers Training?
31. To determine the issue, it is also necessary to look into the dictionary meaning of the word "recognised". As per Chambers Dictionary, New Edition (2000), it is "to know again"; "to identify as known"; "to acknowledge the validity of a claim";
"to acknowledge the status". The meaning of "recognition" is also acknowledgement of status".
36. The appellants of LPA Nos. 246 of 2004, 301 of 2004, 271 of 2004, 308 of 2004, 445 of 2004, 236 of 2004, 269 of 2004, 235 of 2004, 548 of 2004, 518 of 2004, 300 of 2004, 289 of 2004 and 273 of 2004 claim to have passed "Sr. Teachers Training -8- Course" from different institutions, located at Kolkata, namely,
(i) Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata.
(ii) Oxford College of Education, Kolkata.
(iii) Devid, Hare College of Correspondence, Kolkata.
(iv) Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata.
(v) D.C. College & D.C. Engineering College, Kolkata.
(vi) St. Thomas College of Correspondence, Kolkata.
(vii) All India Education Society, Kolkata.
(viii) All India Correspondence Coaching Society, Kolkata, and
(ix) Montessary Teachers Training College, Kolkata.
45. The Supreme Court has taken serious view in allowing the students of unrecognised institutions to appear at public examinations. In the case of State of Maharashtra v. Vikash Saheb Rao Roundley and Ors., reported in AIR 1992 SC 1926, the Supreme Court has observed as follows :
"......In short teachers need to be endowed and energized with needed potential to serve the needs of the society. The qualitative training in the training colleges or schools would inspire and motivate them into action to the benefit of the students. For equipping such trainees students in a school or a college, all facilities and equipments are absolutely necessary and institutions bereft thereof have no place to exist nor entitled to recognition. In that behalf compliance of the statutory requirements is insisted upon. Slackening the standard and judicial fiat to control the mode of education and examining system are detrimental to the efficient management of the education. The directions to the appellants to disobey the law is subversive of the Rule of law, a breeding ground for corruption and feeding source for indicipline. The High Court, therefore, committed manifest error in law, in exercising its prerogative power conferred under Article 226 of the Constitution, directing the appellants to permit the students to appear for the examination etc."
(Emphasis supplied) V. Looking to issue no.1 pointed in para 5 (i), which is answered in a subsequent paragraph, it is crystal clear that recognised training institute means a Training Institute, recognised or established either by the State Government or by the Union of India or by the -9- Statutory Body, such as, NCTE, UGC etc./ Organizations, managed and controlled either by the State Government or by the Central Government or a Training Institute, recognised or affiliated by a University or a Board for imparting teachers training course.
VI. Much has been argued out by the counsel for the respondents (original petitioner) in L.P.A. No.357 of 2016 and L.P.A. No.382 of 2013 that these Rules are not applicable to them.
We are not accepting this contention mainly for the reason that the respondent of L.P.A. No. 357 of 2016 (petitioner in W.P.S No.4873 of 2006) was appointed on 18.08.2005 and the Rules are applicable from 2002 onwards. So far as respondent in L.P.A. No.382 of 2013 is concerned, the said teacher though was appointed on 02.01.1997, the fact remains that by that time NCTE Act, 1993 which was brought into effect from 01.07.1995, was already in force and as per Section 2(i) of the Act, 1993 also, the institution from where senior teachers training was obtained by the respondent, ought to have been a recognised institute, as per Section 14 of the NCTE Act, 1993. Cut-off date is the date of appointment. Even if the respondent of L.P.A. No.382 of 2013 has obtained teachers training earlier, but, when she is seeking recognition or approval from the Government regarding her appointment in a government school, NCTE Act, 1993, shall be applicable.
VII. In the facts of the present case, the
- 10 -
respondent of L.P.A. No.382 of 2013 (petitioner of W.P.S. No.3344 of 2008), has obtained her Senior Teachers Training from Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata in the year 1994, and she is seeking appointment from 02.01.1997. Thus, as on date of appointment, the Government is always in search of those candidates, who have cleared the teachers training course from "a recognised institution". This aspect of the matter has also not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.3344 of 2008 vide judgment and order dated 12.03.2013.
VIII. So far as the respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 (original petitioner in W.P.S. No.2005 of 2013) is concerned, the management was taken over by the Government and by that time, Alam Committee was constituted of three member, to weed out those teachers, who were appointed without any eligibility or qualification. This weeding out process was done by Alam Committee and a report was also given by the said Committee. As per the report given by this Alam Committee, the respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014, who was appointed by the School Management Committee, was not having Senior Teachers Training from a recognised institution, and hence, his services were not recognised. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2005 of
- 11 -
2013 vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013.
IX. Much has been argued out by the counsels for the original petitioners in all these three Appeals that the decision rendered by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Dilip Kumar Gupta & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in 2005 (2) JCR 293 (Jhr), has been partly overruled or some observations, made by the Division Bench, have been overruled in a decision rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Seema Kumari & Ors. Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors., reported in (2006) 12 SCC 215.
We are not in agreement with this contention of the counsels for the original petitioners or respondents of all these three appeals. It ought to be kept in mind that the issue which was pointed out by the Division Bench of this Court in para - 5(i) to be read with paragraph nos.31, 36 and 45 of the decision reported in 2005 (2) JCR 293 (Jhr) which interprets the words -
"recognised training institute", has been maintained as it is and has not been overruled, at all, and has been upheld by Hon'ble the Supreme Court. There is a misconception, in the mind of learned counsels for the original petitioners that this interpretation of recognised training institutions has also been overruled.
X. For ready reference, paragraph nos.6, 8 & 12 of the decision, rendered by Hon'ble Supreme Court, as reported in (2006) 12 SCC 215, read as under :-
"6. The Court also relied upon a directory issued by the Eastern Regional Committee of National
- 12 -
Council for Teacher Education in which the list of those teachers' training institutions, their year of establishment, number of seats approved by NCTE and the names of the examining body to which the institutions are affiliated had been mentioned. It was noted that the institutions from which the appellants had obtained teachers' training certificates were not included. Indeed the appellants did not dispute that the institutions had not been recognised nor were they affiliated to NCTE. The institutions conduct their own examinations privately and issued certificates of training. The Court relied upon various decisions of this Court including the decision in N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. in which it was held: (SCC pp. 170-71, para 3) "If by a fiat of the court we direct the Government to permit them to appear at the examination we will practically be encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. It is not appropriate that the jurisdiction of the court either under Article 32 of the Constitution or Article 226 should be frittered away for such a purpose. The teachers' training institutes are meant to teach children of impressionable age and we cannot let loose on the innocent and unwary children, teachers who have not received proper and adequate training. True they will be required to pass the examination but that may not be enough. Training for a certain minimum period in a properly organised and equipped training institute is probably essential before a teacher may be duly launched."
8. The matter was taken up by the appellants before the Division Bench. The Division Bench also dismissed the appeal. It went into the requirement for recognition and the various rules relating to recognition. It also took into consideration the definition of "trained" in the Jharkhand Primary School Amended Recruitment Rules of 2003. The Court came to the conclusion that the expression "recognised training institute" as occurring in the 2002 Rules means a training institute, recognised or appointed by the State Government or the Union of India or statutory bodies such as NCTE, UGC, etc. organisations maintained or controlled either by the State Government or the Central Government or training institutes recognised or affiliated to university or a board for imparting teachers' training course. Additionally the Court went into the genuineness of the teachers' training certificates granted to the appellants. Although, the Court noted that no specific stand had been taken by the parties relating to genuineness of one or other institution situated in Kolkata, West Bengal, but "with a curiosity to find out the status of the institutions" it went through the certificates which were enclosed with the writ petitions, memo of
- 13 -
appeals issued by the institutions and came to the conclusion that the institutions were fake.
12. However, on the merits of the case we are of the view that the decision of the Division Bench must otherwise be sustained. It is true that the appellants may have been successful in the examination held by the Commission. However, that was not enough. The advertisement specifically referred to the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules which as we have already stated above required trained teachers to be from recognised institutions. We are not satisfied that the institutions were recognised as held by the High Court. The appellants had sought to rely upon a document stated to have been issued by the Registrar, West Bengal State Council of Technical Education on 31-1-2002 to the effect that the West Bengal State Council of Technical Education had no objection to extend provisional recognition to the institute up to 28-2-2002 with an intention to conduct final examination of the second batch of students. It is not clear whether this document was before the courts below. Assuming that it was, it merely speaks of extension of a provisional recognition. The original recognition, if any, has not been produced before us. It is also not clear whether the recognition had been granted to the institutions in question when those appellants who had taken the teachers' training certificates from those institutions had obtained their certificates."
(Emphasis supplied) XI. In view of the aforesaid decision rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the judgment delivered by the Division Bench has been confirmed so far as interpretation of words - "recognised training institute" is concerned. What was observed by the Division Bench about the institution that it is a fake institution that sentence has been expunged. Nothing more or nothing less than this. Only one sentence has been expunged and not the basic interpretation of the words - "recognised training institute" and other findings have not been overruled, at all. On the contrary, the whole judgment has been approved by Hon'ble the Supreme Court, except one line that the institution was a fake institution and except the finding of doubtfulness of
- 14 -
the institution from which the candidates obtained their teachers training certificates. Meaning thereby, the institution, may be genuine and imparting education sincerely and diligently, but, it was not recognised by the State Government nor by the Central Government nor by any University nor by any Statutory Body. It is like grant of MBBS degree and with all care and caution teaching is being imparted to such candidates who cannot undertake operation, unless his degree is recognised, either by the State Government or Central Government or any Statutory Body. Thus, we are not concerned with the sincerity of the institution or lengthy syllabus, following by such institution, on a road. We are also not concerned with the fact that how sincerely the students have attended the classes and how knowledgeable they are, but, if the institution is not recognised either by the State Government or by Central Government or by any University or by any Statutory Body, no government job can be offered to them nor their services can be approved by the Government. Such type of candidates can use their knowledge for their own purposes and for the institutions, which never require the certificate from a recognised institution. Several typist are learning typing for the development of their own skill for their own personal office, but, they cannot get the governmental job, unless, their institutions are recognised either by the State Government or Central Government or by any University or by any Statutory
- 15 -
Body. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petitions.
XII. So far as L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 is concerned, the respondent was appointed in a Project Girls High School for imparting education to the students of Class - VIII to X, which is governed by Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Management and Taking Over) Act, 1981 and the Rules enacted under Section 9 thereof namely Bihar Government Secondary School (Service Condition) Rules, 1983, and as per Rule 4 (kha) (2), it is required that a candidate must have obtained teachers training from a recognised institution which is recognised either by the State Government or by any University or by any Statutory Body.
XIII. In the facts of the present case, the respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 (petitioner of W.P.S. No.2005 of 2013) has got his teachers training certificate from Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata, which was never recognised, either by any State Government or by Central Government or by any University or by any Statutory Body, and hence, no error has been committed by the appellant - State Government in "not granting"
approval/ recognition to such a teacher. There is no duty vested in the State Government to recognize the teachers or to approve the services of those teacher, who have got teachers training from an unrecognised institution, and hence, no writ of mandamus can be
- 16 -
issued against this appellant. This aspect of the matter has not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while allowing the writ petition being W.P.(S) No.2005 of 2013 vide judgment and order dated 30.07.2013, and hence, it deserves to be quashed and set aside.
XIV. Much has been argued out by the learned counsel for the respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 that the said institution namely, Sister Nivedita College, Kolkata, is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860.
This contention is also not helpful to the respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014, mainly for the reason that even if, it is registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, but, the institution is not recognised either by the State Government or by the Central Government or by any University or by any Statutory Body. A candidate obtained a degree from such institution, will not be eligible, to apply for the post of teacher in Government School and if he/ she is already appointed, his/ her, services cannot be confirmed, by the Government. Registration under the Societies Registration Act is helpful for income tax purpose and nothing beyond that.
XV. Counsel for the original petitioner has also placed reliance upon few decisions rendered by this High Court.
We have gone through the judgments delivered by
- 17 -
this High Court and they are not helpful to the original petitioner, mainly for the reason that in none of these judgments, upon which reliance has been placed by the counsel for the original petitioner, never the words - "recognised training institute" have been argued out nor interpreted nor decided, whereas in these Letters Patent Appeals, the words - "recognised training institute" have been emphasized and these words have already been interpreted, as stated hereinabove, by the Division Bench of this Court in a decision, reported in 2005 (2) JCR 293 (Jhr), which is confirmed by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in a judgment reported in (2006) 2 SCC 215, except, one line of the Division Bench of this Court that "the institution was a fake institution". Except this sentence, everything was confirmed, especially, the interpretation of the words - "recognised training institute".
XVI. Learned counsel appearing for the the respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014, has also placed reliance upon the decision rendered by a Division Bench of this Court, reported in 2007 (1) JCR 578 (Jhr).
We have carefully gone through this judgment and the same is also not helpful to this respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 (petitioner of W.P.S No.2005 of 2013), mainly for the reason that looking to paragraph nos. 2 & 3, it has been pointed by the Division Bench that the institution was not a fake institution and on that ground the said matter was decided. Here we are not concerned
- 18 -
with the fact that whether the institution is fake or not. The institutions may be having air conditioned rooms, highly qualified teachers, meticulously presence of students is being sought for, lengthy syllabus they must be teaching, seriously the students are receiving their knowledge, yet, if such institutions are not recognised either by the State Government or by the Central Government or by any University or by any Statutory Body, the candidates who have obtained "teachers training" from such air conditioned coaching classes, cannot get the government job as teacher, on the basis of that study. Moreover, such institutions are fixing their syllabus of their own, they are conducting their classes as per their whims and capricious, they are also providing training of the teachers on their own and they are taking examination on their own and they are giving results on their own and issuing certificates on their own. Sometimes very inflated results are coming out as 90 to 95 per cent.
XVII. From the above facts, it can be inferred that these institutions are akin to road side institutes running typing classes or any vocational training classes imparting some sort of education and issuing certificates/ degrees, etc. as a largesse on the basis of the syllabus prescribed by themselves without it being approved by any statutory authority. The persons armed with such easily available certificates thereafter, have been moving from pillar to post, here and there, for
- 19 -
getting approval of their appointment which has given birth to the writ petitions consequent thereto, the instant Letters Patent Appeals. We are not concerned with this percentage, until and unless, such institutions are being recognised either by any State Government or by Central Government or by any University or by any Statutory Body, the students who have got teachers training certificates from such unrecognised institution, cannot get the governmental job, as teacher and if they have been appointed, their services cannot be approved or confirmed or ratified by the Appellant State.
XVIII. Much has been argued out by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 (original petitioner) that similarly situated 22 to 25 teachers are also serving with the State of Jharkhand.
Be that as it may, we are here for deciding the case of the original petitioners of all the three writ petitions, who have no case, at all, for getting governmental job, on the basis of the certificates, obtained from the unrecognised institutions. It should be kept in mind that even if, any illegality is continued in the State, no benefit can be extended to the respondents, in all these three Appeals. There is no need, to maintain equality, in illegality. Therefore, this argument is a baseless argument.
XIX. The Government has to take work from several hands, they may be honest hands or may be
- 20 -
dishonest hands. They have to take work from lethargic or enthusiastic person. Sometimes, there is combination of both. Dishonest person may be enthusiastic and honest person may be lethargic. Therefore, still few teachers, as alleged by the respondents, are working with the government, otherwise, those teachers, should also go home. Therefore, 22 to 25 teachers are still working with the Government, and hence, no benefit can be extended to the respondents of these three Appeals. There can be no equality in illegality. These respondents (original petitioners) cannot argue that the action should be initiated against all the teachers, because State has all power to initiate action against these respondents (original petitioners).
XX. Counsel appearing for the respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 has also placed reliance upon a decision, as reported in (2008) 9 SCC 24.
Looking to the facts of the present case, the ratio propounded in the aforesaid decision is not helpful to this respondent. The institution from where teachers training certificate has been obtained, may not be a fake institution, yet, it is an unrecognised institution and hence no benefit can be extended to this respondent of L.P.A. No.265 of 2014 (petitioner in W.P.S No.2005 of 2013).
XXI. Counsel appearing for the respondent in L.P.A. No.265 of 2014, has further submitted that the Bihar Government Secondary School (Service Condition)
- 21 -
Rules, 1983, has been amended and the same have been brought into force with effect from 01.06.1999.
This argument is also not helpful to the respondent, mainly for the reason that the institution from where he got teachers training, though was not a fake institution, but, was an unrecognised institution.
4. The aforesaid facts and reasons have not been properly appreciated by the learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions being W.P.(S) No.4873 of 2006 W.P.(S) No.3344 of 2008 and W.P.(S) No.2005 of 2013, vide judgment and order dated 22.12.2014, 12.03.2013, and 30.07.2013 respectively. We, therefore, quash and set aside the judgments and orders, rendered by the learned Single Judge.
5. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements, all these three Letters Patent Appeals are hereby allowed and disposed of.
6. In view of final order passed in the aforesaid Letters Patent Appeals, the interlocutory applications, preferred therein, are, hereby, disposed of.
(D. N. Patel, A.C.J) (Amitav K. Gupta, J) Chandan - Biswas/-