Patna High Court
Bijay Kumar Singh & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 16 May, 2018
Author: Anil Kumar Upadhyay
Bench: Anil Kumar Upadhyay
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.497 of 2018
======================================================
1. Rajiv Kumar Mishra Son of Sri Narsingh Mishra Resident of
Village +P.O. - Bharpurwa, P.S. - Vijayipur, District- Gopalganj.
2. Vishwa Ranjan Swaroop Pathak Son of late Sri Suresh Pathak
Resident of Village- Sota Dharahra, P.O. +P.S.- Kateya, District-
Gopalganj.
3. Bramhachari Satyaprakash Son of Sri Awadhesh Kumar
Choudhari Resident- Nonapakad, P.O. Bharpurwa, P.S. Vijayipur,
District- Gopalganj.
4. Swati Priya Wife of Sri Om Prakash Vidyarathi Resident of
Nirala Nagar, P.S. Digha, District- Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resource
Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt.
of Bihar , New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Director, Research and Training Council (Education), Bihar, Patna.
5. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council , Shikhsa
Bhawan, Rastrabhasha Parishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 183 of 2018
======================================================
1. Sanjay Prasad Son of Binda Prasad, Resident of Village-
Madhopur Anant, P.S. Sheohar, District-Sheohar, Presently
Deputed as CRCC, Middle School Madhopur Anant, Block
Sheohar, District Sheohar.
2. Bajrang Kumar, Son of Upendra Kumar Singh, Resident of
Village-Purnahiya, P.S. Purnahiya, District-Sheohar Presently
Deputed as BRR, Block-Purnahiya, District-Sheohar.
3. Naresh KUmar Chaudhary, Son of Mahesh Chaudhary, Resident
of Village-Narwara, P.S.-Taxiyani, District-Sheohar. Presently
Deputed as BRR at Tariyani Block, District-Sheohar.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar, through its Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of BIhar, Patna
3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Department, Govt. of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project, Council Patna.
5. The Director, Research & Training, Directorate, Education Department,
BIhar, Patna.
6. The Director, State Educational Research and Training Council, Patna.
7. The Principal District Education and Training Institution.
8. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Department, Muzaffarpur,
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
2/41
9. The District Education Officer, Sheohar.
10. The District Programme Officer, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Sheohar.
11. The Block Education Officer, Sheohar.
12. The Block Education Officer, Purnahiya, Sheohar.
13. The Block Education Officer, Tariyani, Sheohar. ... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 583 of 2018
======================================================
1. Kumar Gaurav, Son of Sri Virendra Prasad Singh, Resident of At
+ Post Office-Gangapur, Police Station-Musarigharari, District-
Samastipur.
2. Chandra Bhushan Thakur, Sono f Late Lal Babu Thakur,
Resident of At+ Post Office-Gohi, Police Station-Waris Nagar,
District-Samastipur.
3. Sanjeev Kumar Jha, Son of Late Visheshwar Jha, Resident of
Village-Udaypur, Police Station-Sarai Ranjan, District-
Samastipur.
4. Ajeet Kumar, Son of Sri raj Kumar Roy, Resident of At +Post
Office-jitwarpur Nizamat, Ward No. 2, Police Station + District-
Samastipur.
5. Akhilesh Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Lakshman Singh, Resident of
At+Post Office-Baghi (Ekadara),Police Station + District-
Samastipur.
6. Shyam Kumar Pandey, Son of Jay Mandal Pandey, Resident of
At+ Post Office- Hanspur, Police Station-Khanpur, District-
Samastipur.
7. Santosh Prasad Karn, Son of Umakant Lal, Resident of At-Dath,
Post Office- Bharwari, Police Station-Hasanpur, District-
Samastipur.
8. Mithilesh Kumar, Son of Baidyanath Prasad, Resident of At +
Post Office-Dhepura, Police Station-Dalsingh Sarai, District-
Samastipur.
9. Farida Khatoon, Wife of Md. Mushtaque Ahmad, Resident of At
+Post Office-Kharasand, police Station-Kalyanpur, District-
Samastipur.
10. Kumar Ranjan, Son of Ram Sakal Yadav, Resident of Village-
Sahit Brindavan, Police Station-Vidyapati Nagar, District-
Samastipur.
11. Rabindra Kumar Singh, Son of Sri Ram Shankar Singh, Resident
of At +Post Office-Samartha, Police Station-Bibhutipur, District-
Samastipur.
12. Kavita Kumari, Sono f Satish Chandra Jha, Resident of Mohalla-
Kashipur, Ward No. 12, Police Station + District-Samastipur.
13. Suman Kumari, Daughter of Sri Ram Ratan Prasad Singh,
Resident of Village-Ghat Nawada, Police Station-Dalsingh Sarai,
District-Samastipur.
14. Paras Nath Maharaj, Son of Sri Rajendra Maharaj, Resident of
At + Post Office-Dasout, Police Station-Hathauri, District-
Samastipur.
15. Rajeev Kumar Jha, Sono f Late Hari Mohan Jha, Resident of At
+ Post Office-Harua, Police Station-Tajpur, District-Samastipur.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
3/41
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of BIhar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of BIhar, Patna
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Research and Training, Education Department, Government of
BIhar, Patna.
5. The Director, Bihar education Project Council, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, Samastipur, District-Samastispur.
7. The District Programme Officer (Elementary Education and Sarv Shiksha
Abhiyan), Samastipur, District-Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 517 of 2018
======================================================
1. Ranjeet Kumar Son of Sri Sathu Roy Resident of Village : -
Hariochanpur Sukki, P.S. : Patepur, District : - Vaishali at
Hajipur.
2. Md. Nasim Ahmad Son of Late Md. Nayem Resident of Village :
- Chakanser, P.S. : Patepur, District : Vaishali at Hajipur.
3. Raju Ranjan Kumar Son of Sri Ram Prakash Singh Resident of
Village : - Agrail, P.S. Baligaon, District : - Vaishali at Hajipur.
4. Sushma Kumari Daughter od Chandeshwar Pd. Choudhary, Wife
of Abhay Kumar Resident of Village : - Chakanser, P.S. :
Patepur, District : Vaishali at Hajipur.
5. Arvind Kumar Pandey Son of Late Chaturbhuj Pandey Resident
of Village - Narayanpur Khairi, P.S. Waimi O.P., District : -
Vaishali at Hajipur.
6. Pravin Kumar Son of Late Iswar Prasad Singh Resident of
Village : - Dwarikanagar, P.S. Mushahari, District - Muzaffarpur.
7. Rakesh Kumar Son of Late Ram Nagina Roy Resident of Village
- Keshopur, P.S. Sakra, District - Muzaffarpur.
8. Sujit Kumar Son of Ramanand Thakur Resident of Village :
Sharma, P.S. - Mahua, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
9. Ajit Kumar Son of Sonelal Singh Resident of Village : - Piroi,
P.S. Goraul, District : Vaishali at Hajipur.
10. Kamendragiri Son of Ram Bahadur Giri Resident of Village :
Dabaiehai, P.S. Tisiauta, District : Vaishali at Hajipur.
11. Md. Masum Faiz Son of Hafiz Md. Nazim Resident of Village -
Chaknasir, P.S. Patepur, District - Vaishali at Hajipur.
12. Rajeev Kumar Son of Ram Shrestra Mishra Resident of Village :
Raghopur Harsanda, P.S. Patepur, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
13. Susant Kumar Roy Son of Jaimurat Roy Resident of Village
Mahipura, P.S. Jandaha, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
14. Vijay Kumar Son of Premnath Roy Resident of Village : -
Chhatwara Kapoor, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali at Hajipur.
15. Kiran Kumari Wife of Raj Kumar Roy Resident of Village -
Milki, P.O. Rusulpur Fatah, P.S. Mahua, District Vaishali.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
4/41
16. Braj Kishore Singh Son of Gouri Shankar Singh Resident of
Village - Chhitauli, P.O. Peruli, P.S. Goraul, District : Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Principal Secretary, General Administration Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat,
Patna.
5. The Director, Research and Training Council (Education), Bihar, Patna.
6. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Shiksha
Bhawan, Rastrabhasha Parishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1463 of 2018
======================================================
1. Vivek Kumar, Son of Mahendra Sah, Resident of At- Anant
Karja, P.O. & P.S.- Karja, District- Muzaffarpur.
2. Mukesh Kumar, Son of Jaynandan Prasad Singh, At Ayachi
Gram Road No.- 7, East, North of Bairiya Bus Statnd, P.O.-
M.I.T., P.S- Ahiyapur, District- Muzaffarpur.
3. Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad, Son of Md. Sharfuddin, At + P.O.-
Megwal Mathia, P.S.- Ramnagar, District- West Champaran.
4. Shashi Ranjan Kumar, Son of Shyam Nandan Bhagat, Village-
Dhodhi Ratan, P.O.- Keshrawan, P.S.- Kurhani, District-
Muzaffarpur.
5. Md. Akil Ahmad, Son of Md. Kamrul Hoda, At- Katahan, P.O.-
Barkagaon, P.S.- Karja, District- Muzaffarpur.
6. Rakesh Kumar, Son of Sri Suresh Ray, At- Mirjapur, P.O.-
Srisia, P.S.- Kanti, District- Muzaffarpur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. Director, Research & Training Council (Education), Bihar, Patna.
4. State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1545 of 2018
======================================================
1. Anjan Kumar, S/o Sri Sudhir Kumar Mishra, R/o- at+P.O.-
Baheda Jahidpur, P.S.- Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.
2. Mukesh Kumar, S/o Sri Ram Nagina Prasad, R/o Village-
Madhuban Bazar, P.O.+P.S.- Bajpatti, District- Sitamarhi.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
5/41
3. Rana Randhir Kumar, S/o Sri Jagdanand Kumar, R/o At+P.O.-
Katka, P.S.- Singhwara, District- Darbhanga.
4. Jay Gauraav, S/o Sri Hare Krishna Prasad, R/o at + P.O.- Dorpur,
P.S.- Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.
5. Manoj Kumar Chaudhary, S/o Sri Ram Vilash Chaudhary, R/o
at+P.O.- Bhadiyan, P.S.- Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.
6. Rajeev Kumar, S/o Sri Haridev Jha, R/o Village- Ratanpura,
P.S.- Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.
7. Pankaj Kumar Bharti, S/o Late Ramashish Paswwan, R/o
Village- Sonversa Tola, P.S.- Pupari, District- Sitamarhi.
8. Nirbhay Kumar, S/o Sri Arun Kumar Singh, R/o Village-
Brahmaul, P.S.- Nanpur, District- Sitamarhi.
9. Om Prakash, S/o Sri Chandeshwar Thakur, R/o Village-
Bahilwara Dhanushi, P.S.- Runni Saidpur, District- Sitamarhi.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Research and Training, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Director, Bihar, State Project Council, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
7. The District Programme Officer (Elementary Education and Sarv Shiksha
Abhiyan), Sitamarhi, District- Sitamarhi.
8. The Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Dumra, District-
Sitamarhi.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1787 of 2018
======================================================
1. Md. Nurul Hoda, S/o-Md.Kalinullah, R.o-Village-Bhakurahiya,
P.O.-Harpur, P.S.-Nakardei, District-East Champaran.
2. Atikur Rahman, S/o-Zakir Hussain, R/o-Village-Inarwa, P.S.-
Adapur, District-East Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Governmment of BIhar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of BIhar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Research and Training, Education Department, Government of
BIhar, Patna.
5. The Director, Bihar, State Project Council, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, East Champaran, District-East Champaran.
7. The District Programme Officer (Elementary Education and Sarv Shiksha
Abhiyan), East Champaran, District-East Champaran.
8. The Principal Secretary, Education and Training Institute, District- East
Champaran. .. ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
6/41
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1710 of 2018
======================================================
1. Bijay Kumar Singh S/o Sri Bimal Kishore Singh R/o At + P.O. -
Mohraghat, P.S. - Alauli, District - Khagaria.
2. Prashant Kumar S/o Sri Sudhir Kumar R/o At Bhadas (North),
P.O. - Bhadas (South), P.S. - Muffasil, Block & District -
Khagaria.
3. Sujeet Kumar S/o Sri Ram Chandra Mehta R/o At + P.O. -
Sanhauli, District - Khagaria.
4. Prashant Kumar S/o Late Sita Ram Prasad R/o At Samirnagar,
P.O. - Koshi College, Block & District - Khagaria.
5. Wakil Thakur S/o Sri Nand Kishore Thakur R/o At Ashok Nagar,
Ward No. 15, P.O. - Koshi College, District - Khagaria.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director (Research and Training), Education Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
4. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Patna.
5. The District Education Officer, Khagaria.
6. The District Programme Officer (EE & SSA), Khagaria.
7. The Principal, District Institution of Education and Training (DIET), Ramganj
Sansarpur, Khagaria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1750 of 2018
======================================================
1. Brij Bihari Rai, S/o Late Sri Bhagwan Rai, R/o Village-
Kritpura, Post- Kamarpur, P.S. & District- Buxar (at present
working as Block Resource Person, Buxar).
2. Nasheem Ahmad, S/o Late Sadruddin Ahmad, Vill+Post-
Chanwath, P.S.- Nvanagar, Distt- Buxar (present working as
cluster resource centre coordinator M.S. Churamanpur).
3. Rajnish Sinha, S/o Late Rajesh Nandan Sharan Sinha, R/o
Mahadevopuri, Gardani Bagh, Post- G.P.O. Patna (at present
working as Block Resources person, Buxar) Brahampur.
4. Dhananjay Prasad Singh, S/o Janardan Prasad Singh, Vill- Veer
Knuwar Singh Colony, Buxar, Post- Buxar, P.S.- Buxar.
5. Ravikant Singh, S/o Chandrama Singh, Vill & Post- Karahansi,
P.S.- Chausa, Distt- Buxar.
6. Kamlesh Kumar, S/o Brij Mohan Rai, Vill- Teachers Colony
Charitravan Buxar, Post- Buxar, P.S.- Buxar, Distt- Buxar.
7. Nagendra Kumar Singh, S/o Late Sheo Shankar Yadav, Vill &
Post- Brahmpur Chaurasta, P.S.- Brahampur (at present working
as Block Resource Person, Brahampur).
8. Jay Prakash Tiwary, S/o Late Pashupati Nath Tiwary, Vill &
Post- Bhadwar, Bagen Gola, Distt- Buxar (at present working as
Block Resource person, Brahampur).
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
7/41
9. Rajeev Kumar Jaiswal, S/o Arvind Kumar, Vill & Post- Nimej
P.S.- Brahampur, Distt- Buxar (at present working as Block
Resource Person, Brahampur).
10. Krishna Kant Pandey, S/o Late Janardan Pandey, Vill- Sohani
Patti Buxar, Post- Buxar, P.S.- Buxar, Distt- Buxar (Present
working as Cluster Resource Centre Co-ordinator M.S. Dalsagar.
11. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, S/o Nageshwar Prasad, Vill & Post-
Majharia, P.S.- Buxar, Distt- Buxar (Present woking as Cluster
Resource Centre Co-ordinator M.S. Ramobaria).
12. Arvind Kumar Singh, S/o Late Brij Raj Singh, Resident of
Village+Post- Arak, Police Station- Krishna Braham, District-
Buxar, presently working as BRP, Chakki.
13. Dr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, S/o Anand Kumar Mishra, Vill+Post-
Dumraon, Distt- Buxar (at present working as Block Resource
Person, Chaugain).
14. Md. Naushad Ali, S/o Md. Kasim, Vill & Post- Brahampur, P.S.-
Brahmpur, Distt- Buxar (at present working as Block Resource
Person Brahmpur).
15. Dhananjay @ Dhananjay Prasad Singh, S/o Janardan Prasad
Singh, Resident of Mohalla- Veer Kunwar Singh Nagar,
Post+Police Station+District- Buxar, presently working as
CRCC.
16. Jitendra Tiwari, S/o Rajendra Tiwari, Vill- Sidhipur, Post-
Shivpur, Distt- Buxar (at present working as Block Resource
Person, Chaugain).
17. Bipin Kumar, S/o Sri Jitendra Kumar Singh, Vill & Post-
Dhansoin, Distt- Buxar (Present working as Cluster Resource
Centre Co-ordinator M.S. Mohanpur, Rajpur).
18. Ajay Kumar Singh, S/o Late Jag Dayal Singh, Resident of
Mohalla- Vishwamitra Colony, Niranjanpur Golumber, Police
Station- Industrial Area, Buxar, District- Buxar, Presently posted
as BRP, Buxar.
19. Krishna Bihari Rai, S/o Late Bhagwan Rai, Resident of Village-
Kritpura, Post- Kamarpur, Police Station- Chausa, District-
Buxar, Presently working as CRCC.
20. Mukesh Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Harendra Singh, Assistant teacher
M.S. Dudhipatti, Post- Simri, P.S.- Simri, Distt- Buxar (at
present working as Block Resource Person, Simri).
21. Ashok Kumar Rai, S/o Late Sudarshan Rai, Presently working as
Assistant Teacher, M.S. Arjunpur, Block- Simri, BRP, Simri,
District- Buxar.
22. Sahjahan, S/o Late Abdul Hafiz, Resident of Village+Post-
Dumri, Police Station- Simri, District- Buxar, Presently working
as CRCC, M.s. Dhakaich.
23. Akhilesh Kumar Rai, S/o Sri Bashisth Muni Rai, Resident of
Village+Post- Ekwna, Police Station- Simri, District- Buxar.
24. Vijay Shankar Ojha, S/o Late Baban Ojha, Resident of Village-
Garahaiya, Post & Police Station- Sikraul Lakh, District- Buxar,
presently working as CRCC.
25. Gopal Jee Rai, S/o Bhuneshwar Rai, Resident of Village+Post-
Chhotkin Sarimpur, Police Station & District- Buxar, presently
working as CRCC.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
8/41
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Education Officer, Buxar.
4. The Director, Research and Training Council (Education), Bihar, Patna.
5. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Shikcha
Bhawan, Rastrabhasha Parishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1958 of 2018
======================================================
1. Ram Sagar Yadav, Son of Ramadhar Yadav, Resident of Village-
Darauli, Police Station- Darauli, District- Siwan.
2. Durgesh Kumar Gupta, Son of Late Naresh Prasad, Resident of
Village- Chitakhal, Police Station- Guthni, District- Siwan.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal ..................... Education Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. Rajya Pariyojna Nideshak, Bihar Siksha Pariyojna Parishad, Bihar, Patna.
3. Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar Patna.
4. Director, Sodh Avam Prashikshan Nidashalay, Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2306 of 2018
======================================================
1. Sajjad Ali, S/o Shekh Bhannu, R/o Village+P.O.- Jayshinhpur
Tola Gharbari, P.S.- Turkaulia, District- East Champaran at
Motihari.
2. Rajesh Kumar Rajak, S/o Indradev Baitha, R/o Village+P.O.-
Amar Chhatauni Mission Compound, P.S.- Chhatauni, District-
East Champaran at Motihari.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Research and Training, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Director, Bihar, State Project Council, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, East Champaran, District East Champaran.
7. The District Programme Officer (Elementary Education and Sarv Shiksha
Abhiyan), East Champaran, District- East Champaran.
8. The Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Betiah, District- East
Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
9/41
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2338 of 2018
======================================================
1. Md. Sagir Ahmad, S/o Late Taimullah Miyan, R/o Village-
Madhavi Nagar, Ward No.15, Ganj No-1, Naya Tola, P.S.-
Bettiah, District- West Champaran.
2. Sanjay Kumar Verma, S/o Bipin Bihari Verma, R/o Mahendra
Colony, Banuchhaper, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil, District- West
Champaran.
3. Rakesh Raman, S/o Late Prem Nath Srivastava, R/o St. Kabir
Road, Luxmi Nagar, Banuchhaper, P.S.- Bettiah Muffasil,
District- West Champaran.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Director, Research and Training, Education Department, Government of
Bihar, Patna.
5. The Director, Bihar State Project Council, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, West Champaran, District- West Champaran.
7. The Principal, District Education and Training Institute, Kumarbagh, Bettiah,
District- West Champaran.
8. The District Programme Officer (Elementary Education and Sarv Shiksha
Abhiyan), West Champaran, District- West Champaran.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2585 of 2018
======================================================
1. The Bihar Rajya Prarambhik Shkshak Sangh, Block Kutumba,
District-Aurangabad through its Vice President Nirbhay Kumar
Singh Son of Mritunjay Kumar Singh Resident of Village-
Hardiya, P.S.-Kutumba, Distt.-Aurangabad.
2. Santosh Kumar Son of Nagnath Singh Resident of Village-Amba,
P.O.+P.S.-Amba and Distt.-Aurangabad (Active Member of The
Bihar Raiya Prarambhik Shikshak Singh)
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human
Resources, Development, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary education, Govt. of BIhar, Patna.
4. The District Magistrate, Aurangabad.
5. The District Education Officer, Aurangabad.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2614 of 2018
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
10/41
======================================================
1. Surya Kant Gupta S/o Sri Sita Ram Prasad R/o Village -
Dhekwaha, P.S. - Islampur, District - Nalanda.
2. Ramkhelawan Prasad Mahto S/o Late Chhathu Mahto resident of
Village - Dighaut, P.S. - Sikandara, District Jamui.
3. Manoj Kumar S/o Late Dhruw Deo Prasad Singh R/o Mahatma
Gandhi Nagar, Kanti Factory Road, P.S. - Agamkuan, District -
Patna.
4. Dr. Namrata Anand D/o Mr. Anil Kumar Verma R/o Vishnupuri,
P.S. - Gardanibagh, District - Patna.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Education,
Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director (Primary Education), New Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Director Research and Training Department of Education, Government of
Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
5. The State Project Director, Bihar Education Project Council Saidpur,
Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 2977 of 2018
======================================================
1. Rajeev Kumar, Son of Shyam Nandan Sharma, Resident of
Village-Srichandpur, P..S. Harnaut, District-Nalanda at Present
Posted on the Post of "Assistant teacher' at Upgrade Middle
School, Dwarika Bigha, District-Nalanda.
2. Ravi Shankar Prasad, Son of late Yadunandan Mahto, Resident of
Village + P.O.-Gonama, P.S.-Harnaut, District-Nalanda, at
Present Posted on the Post of "Assistant Teacher' at Primary
School, Mohmodabad, Block-Bind, District-Nalanda.
3. Shashi Kiran Kumar Chaudhary, Son of Sri Brij Nandan
Chaudhary, Resident of Village-Sharifabad, P.O.-Atma, P.S.-
Islampur, District-Nalanda, at Present Posted on the Post of
Assistant Teacher at Karya Middle School, Korai Parsurai,
District-Nalanda.
4. Shiv Shankar Nath, Son of Baidya Nath Prasad, Resident of
Village + P.O.-Pahari, P.S.-Agam Kuan, District-Patna, at
Present Posted on the Post of "Assistant Teacher" Primary
School, Kanholi, Korai Parsurai, District-Nalanda.
5. Abhay Kumar Arya, Son of Sri Nathu Prasad, Resident of Village
+ P.O.-Narsanda, P.S.-Chandi, District-Nalanda, at Present
Posted on the Post of "Assistant Teacher" at Primary School,
Sagarpar, Harnaut, District-Nalanda."
6. Raj Kumar, Son of Sri Chandeshwar Prasad, Resident of Jai
Mahabir Colony, Sandalpur, P.O-Mahendru, P.S.-Bahadurpur,
District-Patna, at Present Posted to the Post of "Assistant
Teacher" at the Upgrade Middle School, Laluadih, Harnaut,
District-Nalanda.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
11/41
7. Ranjit Kumar, Son of Sri Kedar Prasad, Resident of
Village/Mohalla-Ram Krishna Nagar, P.S.-Ram Krishna Nagar,
District-Patna, at Present Posted to the Post of "Assistant
Teacher" at Middle School, Deyawan, Korai Parsurai, District-
Nalanda.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Human Resources
Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director of Education, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, State Council of Educational Research, and Training Govt. of
Bihar, Mahendru, Patna.
4. The Director, Research and Training, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
5. The District Education Officer, Nalanda at Biharsharif.
6. The District Programme Officer, (S.S.A.), Sarva Siksha Abhiyan, Nalanda at
Biharsharif.
7. BIhar Education Project Council, through its State Project Director, Govt. of
BIhar, Shiksha Bhawan, Rastrabhasa Parishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra
Nagar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3753 of 2018
======================================================
1. Ajay Kumar, S/o Sri Kapildeo Rai, R/o Village and P.O.-
Narayanpur Dedhpura, P.S.- Mahnar, District- Vaishali.
2. Pankaj Kishore, S/o Sri Suresh Prasad Singh, R/o Village-
Mahindwara, P.O.- Jandaha, P.S.- Mahanar, District- Vaishali.
3. Manoj Kumar Mishra, S/o Sri Braj Kishore Mishra, R/o Village-
Bhataulia, P.O.- Gidha, District- Muzaffarpur working as Block
Teacher Basic School, Balukaram Vaishali.
4. Shashi Kant Kumar, S/o Sri Shyam Narayan Singh, R/o Village-
Phuladih, P.O.- Mansoorpur, District- Vaishali.
5. Laxamikant Kumar, S/o Sri Ambika Prasad, R/o Village-
Mataiyan, P.O.- Madhopur Ram, P.S.- Vaishali, District-
Vaishali.
6. Kameshwar Prasad Divakar, S/o Sri Yogendra Sah, R/o Village-
Mataiyan and P.O.- Madhopur Ram, District- Vaishali.
7. Vinod Kumar Singh, S/o Sri Bhonu Singh, R/o Village-
Narayanpur P.O.- Narayanpur, P.S.- Vaishali, District- Vaishali.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human
Resource Development, Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Department of Human Resource
Development, Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Research and Training, Department of Human Resource
Development, Bihar, Patna.
4. Bihar Education Project Council, Siksha Bhawan, Rashtrabhasha Parishad
Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna through its Director.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
12/41
5. The Director, Bihar Education Project Council, Siksha Bhawan,
Rashtrabhasha Parishad Campus, Saidpur, Rajendra Nagar, Patna.
6. The District Education Officer, Vaishali.
7. The District Program Officer, (EE & SSA), Vaishali.
8. The District Project Coordinator, Bihar Education Project Vaishali.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
with
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 3338 of 2018
======================================================
1. Ranjeet Kumar, Son of Late Ram Sagar Singh, Resident of
Village- Bihat, Tola- Maksaspur, P.S.- Barauni, Distt- Begusarai.
2. Ram Kumar, Son of Dev Narayan Sah, Resident of Ward No.09,
Rahika, P.S.- Rahika Distt & Town, Madhubani.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Department, Govt. of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director Primary Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The Bihar Education Project Council through the State Project Director.
5. The State Project Director the Bihar Education Council Bihar, Patna.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. P.K. Shahi, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Mrigank Mauli, Advocate
Mr. Chakrapani, Advocate
Mr. Abhinav Shrivastva, Advocate
Mr. Sandeep Kumar, Adcoate
Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
Mr. Saket, Advocate
Mr. Amrendra Kumar, Advocate
For the BEPC : Mr. Lalit Kishor, Sr. Advocate
Mr. Grijish Kumar, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadav -G.P-23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR UPADHYAY
CAV JUDGMENT
Date : 16-05-2018
Even after 70 long years of independence, we are still
passing through the process of trial and error in the matter of
deciding policy to improve education system. In furtherance of the
total literacy campaign and to workout mechanisms for
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
13/41
improvement of the education system at elementary level, the
Bihar Education Project Council has issued guideline from time to
time and prescribed qualification and other conditions for
executing their key project of spreading education through the
machinery of block for which Block Resource Person and
Convener Cluster Resource Centre have been created. (hereinafter
referred to as the BRP and CRCC for brevity).
2. This batch of writ petitions have been filed by the teachers
whose job is to primarily impart instructions, seeking indulgence
of the Court either for retention of their service as BRP or CRCC,
in addition thereof they are challenging the 2017 Guideline so that
they may also compete for re-selection or selection as BRP and
CRCC.
3. Earlier on 9.3.2018 Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General
had submitted to the Court that similar matter is pending before
the Division Bench in CWJC No. 1134/2018. On 29.3.2018 the
Division Bench comprising Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble
Mr. Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad has clarified that the issue
involved does not relate to validity of statutory rule and as such
relegated the parties before this Court and thereafter arguments
have been advanced on behalf of the parties.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
14/41
4. In all the writ applications petitioners have challenged the
legality and validity of 2017 Guideline for selection of BRP and
CRCC. For the purpose of deciding the present batch of writ
applications, it is useful to refer to the pleadings in CWJC No. 497
of 2018, which has been taken as lead case for hearing the batch
of writ applications challenging the validity of the Guidelines
2017.
5. The petitioners have challenged the Guideline, 2017 and
prayed for quashing of sub-clause (Cha) of Clause 2.2.1 of
Guidelines for selection of Block Resource Person for Block
Resource Centre and Convener Cluster Resources Center. Their
challenge is with reference to the condition incorporated in the
Guideline with regard to educational qualification and other
eligibility for selection. Referring to the conditions they have
pleaded that the 2017 Guideline is confined to the selection from
amongst teachers of District Cadre having M.A., M.Sc., M.A.
B.Ed. degree and only in the absence of District Cadre Teacher,
Trained Graduate Cadre Teachers have been made eligible for
selection. The petitioners have also challenged the validity of Sub-
Clause (Cha) of Clause 3.2.1 of the Guideline, whereby teachers,
who have earlier worked or working as CRCC or BRP have been
declared ineligible for re-selection. The petitioners have also
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
15/41
challenged the condition incorporated in Clause 3.2.2 of the 2017
Guideline, whereby restrictions have been made to the selection of
only District Cadre Teachers and only in the absence of District
Cadre Teachers, Trained Graduate Teachers were held eligible for
selection as CRCC.
6. In the pleading they have contended that 2017 Guideline as
introduced is discriminatory, arbitrary and unreasonable and
without any rational justification. The Guideline for 2013 was
substituted without any jurisdiction and as such it is arbitrary.
Their contention in the writ petition is that there is no difference
between District Cadre Teachers and other teachers and as such
the Guideline 2017 suffers from the vice of arbitrariness,
unreasonableness, vagueness and while prescribing the eligibility
criteria they have coined to trilor made criterion to oust the
petitioners and alike, they have also challenged the action of the
respondents prescribing the guideline which discriminates the
teachers between the teachers of District Cadre and other
teachers. In the pleadings they have highlighted that the
Guideline, 2017 offends Article 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution
of India and there is no rational relation between the object for
which they have made a classification of the District Cadre
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
16/41
teachers distinguished from other category of teachers with the
object, which they sought to achieve by such classification.
7. In almost all the writ applications, the pleadings are on the
same line, however, for precision and clarity, the Court wishes to
take into consideration some of the pleadings of the batch of writ
applications where they have highlighted the challenge as to the
policy decision and other action of the respondents. In CWJC No.
1463 of 2013 a prayer has been made for quashing Annexure 3 the
communication dated 19.12. 2017 contained in letter number 9753
whereby the Bihar Education Project Council has issued direction
to the District Education Officers and the District Programme
Officers of different districts to initiate process of selection of
Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource Centre Co-ordinator.
In the said writ petition on similar lines they have challenged the
validity of 2017 Guideline and pleaded that while amending the
2013 Guideline in the matter of appointment of Block Resource
Person and Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator, they have not
taken into consideration any relevant criteria for making a
departure. The whole object behind formulating 2017 Guideline is
to create a different class out of the teachers and to extend undue
favour to a class of people without following the principles of
classification as the twin test of reasonable classification that is
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
17/41
intelligible differentia for the classification and rational nexus to
the object sought to be achieved by such reasonable classification
is totally lacking in this case.
8. In CWJC No. 1545 of 2018 in addition to the challenges to
2017 Guideline, petitioners have pleaded that they are entitled to
complete five years tenure and only thereafter they may be
removed from the position of Block Resource Person or Cluster
Resource Convener. In other writ applications also they have
challenged the 2017 Guideline for selection of Block Resource
Person and Cluster Resource Convener on the ground that the so-
called policy decision in formulating the Guideline, 2017 is not
based on any scientific research, but it is only figment of
imagination of certain person having no expertise. They have also
submitted that the whole idea behind 2017 Guideline is to oust the
Niyojit Shikshak from the zone of selection and the Guideline is
designed to make room for selection of only District Teachers
Cadre. Their pleading is on the line that before altering the
Guideline 2013 they were required to work out with authentic
material that 2013 Guideline has failed to achieve its objective
and as such there is need to change the Guideline and to introduce
new eligibility criteria. Their contention as per pleading appears to
be for challenge of Guideline 2017 is arbitrary and unreasonable
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
18/41
exercise of power and not consistent with Articles 14 and 16 of
the Constitution of India.
9. In support of the writ applications, Mr. Prasanth Kumar
Shahi, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners contended that the change in the eligibility criteria is
arbitrary exercise of power as it is only designed to oust the
petitioners from the zone of consideration. He submitted that the
decision to oust the petitioners and others, who have worked as
Block Resource Person or Cluster Resource Coordinator and are
eligible for re-selection, is arbitrary as by rendering them
ineligible for re-selection would amount to not only depriving
them to serve the project with their wide experience in the project
act as Block Resource Person or Cluster Resource Coordinator but
to stagmitise them as incompetent. Mr. Shahi highlighted that the
change in the eligibility criteria is not for any betterment but only
to render the petitioners ineligible for re-selection. He submitted
that there is no qualitative difference between the teachers
working in the District Cadre schools and other schools. Referring
to the facts and circumstances of the case and the pleading he
submitted that there is no reasonable classification as the
classification of District Cadre Teachers and other category of
teachers is not based on any intelligible differentia. He also
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
19/41
submitted that the classification has no rational relation to the
object sought to be achieved by this kind of classification as they
are not going to be any way benefited by classification and no
object they are going to achieve by such classification and as such
the classification adopted by the respondents in ousting the
petitioners and coining a criteria which is made to oust the
petitioners does not satisfy the test of reasonableness under
Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
10. He submitted with reference to materials available on the
record that the respondents were not justified in introducing new
criteria unless there is a specific study and report that the earlier
Guideline has failed to achieve the desired result and on account
of the failure of the 2013 Guideline they have made a research/
study to come to a conclusion that introducing the new guideline
may improve the system and they may achieve the desired
objective. Mr. Shahi also highlighted that petitioners have been
appointed in the project for a fixed tenure and as such without
completing the tenure, any attempt to appoint Block Resource
Person and Cluster Resource Coordinator and to remove the
petitioners is illegal and arbitrary.
11. Mr Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior counsel
appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the action of
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
20/41
the respondents is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of
India. He submitted that the advertisement in furtherance of 2017
Guideline offends Article 14 of the Constitution as it defeats the
right of petitioners as candidate for consideration inherent in
Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution. Mr. Singh submitted that
although they have no vested right but since they have been
engaged and appointed as Block Resource Person and Cluster
Resource Coordinator and as such they have acquired a status and
depriving the status as Block Resource Person and Cluster
Resource Coordinator violates Article 14 of the Constitution. He
submitted that the respondents have not taken into consideration
the experience aspect which is relevant for the success of any
project and the petitioners who have worked and carried the
objective of the project by their exemplary work and excellent
performance, ought to have been considered for re-
appointment/re-selection as Block Resource Person and Cluster
Resource Coordinator. Mr. Singh also submitted that there is
absolutely no material to justify a switch over from 2013
Guideline to new Guideline of 2017 as there is no research or
study that Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource
Coordinator selected under 2013 Guidelines have failed to
perform their duty in furtherance of the objective of the scheme
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
21/41
and as such there is no justification to exclude the category of
teachers who were earlier considered eligible for the purpose of
appointment of Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource
Coordinator.
12. Mr. Mrigank Mauli, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners submitted that in the instant case they have not
challenged the policy as such but the petitioners have challenged
the action of framing of guideline which is tailor made guideline
to oust a class of teacher and only confined to selection to the
teachers of District Cadre. Such action is illegal and arbitrary.
Reference to the judgment which the respondents have cited to
contend that court should not interfere in such decision, he
submitted that the case on which the respondents have relied
upon that is CWJC No. 1589 of 2013 is distinguishable on fact.
The Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource Coordinator
are entitled to continue till the tenure is not complete. Referring
to the judgment reported in 2007 (4) PLJR 664, he submitted that
in the instant case the issue is discrimination and as such the court
has to consider the writ application from the point of arbitrariness
and discrimination meted out to the petitioners in the matter of
selection of Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource
Coordinator.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
22/41
13. Mr Chakrapani, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioners submits that by depriving the petitioners from the zone
of consideration the petitioners have suffered loss and as such
respondents' action is arbitrary.
14. Mr Abhinav Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the petitioners while highlighting the arbitrariness, has
submitted that for testing the validity of the policy decision the
court is required to examine firstly, on the ground of
classification whether the classification is based on reasonable
criterion and whether any objective they are going to achieve by
such classification. Referring to the present case he submitted
that there is no reasonable classification and in any event there is
no rationality behind such classification as the respondents are
not going to achieve any objective by such classification.
Referring to the judgment of the Apex Court he submitted that
the policy decision has to be tested at the touch stone of the
principle laid down in the case of The Barium Chemicals Ltd.
and Anr vs The Company Law Board and Others: AIR 1967
Supreme Court 295. He also submitted with reference to the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Tata Cellular v. Union
of India: AIR 1996 Supreme Court 11 that the Court has to see
in the decision making process whether there was any
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
23/41
justification behind such a departure from 2013 Guideline to the
Guideline of 2017. He also highlighted that the court has to see
in the challenge of validity whether it was designed to introduce
disqualification and what is the objective behind incorporating
disqualification as a whole for a class of the teachers from the
zone of consideration. Referring to the totality of the facts of the
case he submitted that the Court is required to understand the
idea behind the challenge in 2017 Guideline.
14. Mr Sandeep Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioners has submitted that the 2017 Guideline defeats
legitimate expectation.
15. During the course of hearing on behalf of the respondents
argument was advanced by Mr. Girijish Kumar that the action of
the Bihar Education Project in fixing the new Guideline 2017 is
not illegal, arbitrary or violative of Article 14 and 16 of the
Constitution of India. Mr Girijish Kumar referring to the various
paragraphs of the counter affidavit and supplementary counter
affidavit submitted that the respondents have acted on the basis of
the feedback that the performance of the Block Resource Persons
and Cluster Resource Coordinator is not upto mark and as such a
decision was taken to introduce the 2017 Guideline.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018
24/41
16. After concluding argument, Mr Grijish Kumar submitted
that in this case Mr. Lalit Kishore, Advocate General will further
assist the court and as such in order to facilitate Mr. Lalit Kishore,
learned Advocate General to argue in the matter, the case was
adjourned for 17.4. 2018 for further hearing to facilitate the
Advocate General to make submission. Mr. Advocate General
appeared on that day and he submitted before the court that he has
nothing to add and he proposes to file written notes of argument.
17. On behalf of the Bihar Education Project the written notes
of argument was submitted by Mr. Girijish Kumar, which reads as
follows:-
"1. It is stated that before 07.09.2012 Bihar
Education Project Council (BEPC) was
empowered under scheme to issue executive
instruction/guideline and fixed educational
qualification, criteria for selection etc. of BRPs
and CRCs. In exercise of that power the BEPC
issued different guidelines/instructions in years
2005, 2007 and 2011 respectively.
2. From 07.09.2012 the scheme of selection of
selection of BRPs and CRCs had been taken by
the State Government as a matter of policy
from the BEPC and it was handed over to the
Directorate, Research and Training. From
07.02.2012Directorate, Research and Training empowered under scheme to issue executive Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 25/41 instruction/guideline and fixed qualification and criteria for selection of BRPs and CRCs. In exercise of that power the Directorate, Research and Training issued their own new executive instructions/ guidelines in years 2013, within 1 year in place of earlier executive instructions/guidelines issued by the different department i.e. BEPC in the year, 2011. Term mentioned in the said guideline, tenure of selection, experience for selection etc.
3. Again vide letter dated 17.09.2014 (Annexure-A) the State Government transfer the scheme to the Bihar Education Project Council (BEPC) and made empowered them vide letter dated 17.04.2014 to issue fresh executive instruction/ guideline and fixed qualification and criteria for selection of BRPs and CRCs. In exercise of that power the BEPC issued its own new executive instructions/ guideline in years 2017 after three (3) years from the date when BEPC empowered to issue such executive instruction/ guideline. Moreover, vide letter dated 10.03.2017 (Annexure-L) directed all the district office of District Education Officer as well as the District Programme Officer, SSA of the State of Bihar than the selection of BRPs and CRCs should not been made on the vacant post unless instructed by the department.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 26/41
4. The qualification, tenure of selection, experience for selection of BRPs and CRCs as per executive instructions/ guideline, 2017 issued by the BEPC are different from the executive instructions/ guideline, 2013 issued by the another department i.e. Directorate, Research and Training.
5. However, earlier in the year 2005, BEPC issued executive instructions/ guideline in which it was categorically mentioned that the person once assigned the work cannot be eligible for the consecutive (next) term, meaning thereby any person once engaged can not be engaged for the next consecutive term. Hon'ble Court in its order dated 16.05.2012 passed in CWJC No. 450 of 2012(Annexure-C) and analogous cases in page "12" of the said judgment taken note of that.
6. Also in the executive instruction/ guideline, 2011(Annexure-B) there was same provision that the person once assigned the work can not be eligible for the consecutive (next) term, and minimum teaching experience of 5 year and Hon'ble Court in its order dated 16.05.2012 passed in CWJC No. 450 of 2012 and analogues cases not interfere with the said condition though writ petitioner of that case attacked on the said provisions. Division Bench in LPA no. 941 of 2012 also vide its order dated 10.07.2012(Annexure-D) not interfere with the Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 27/41 and affirmed that there is no illegality of the condition by which any person once engaged is not eligible for the consecutive two terms and minimum teaching experience of 5 year, the same is not suffer from any legal infirmity.
7. This Court till Division Bench affirmed earlier that there is no illegality if the person once selected not eligible for next term. In all previous executive instructions/ guideline issued by the BEPC there was consistent view taken which completely bar for the incumbent for selection of two term consecutively. However, the executive instructions/ guideline, 2013 not issued by the BEPC rather issued by another department the i.e. Directorate, Research and Training in which there was no bar for consecutive selection and also introduced 3 years teaching experience instead of 5 years from whom the scheme has been taken in the year 2014.
8. However, by the executive instruction/guideline, 2017 as a matter of Policy BEPC went one step forward and incorporated the condition that the once person is selected is bar from selecting in future, however, the teaching experience is remain the same i.e. 5 years which was also incorporated by the previous executive instructions/guideline of the year 2005 and 2011 issued by BEPC and there is no change in it. Also Ministry of Human Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 28/41 Resource Development Department, Government subsequently directed to all the State Government that State must focus on the improved selection criteria for the coordination and faculty of BRC and CRCs and they should be professionally qualified and have at least five years teaching experience. New qualified teaching having minimum teaching experience of 5 years is to get the experience as BRPs and CRCs, and bar from further selection so that any teacher may not be out from the class room teaching work for long so that there efficiency may not be affected as teacher and such reasoning or submission affirmed by this Court earlier. Executive instructions/guideline, 20/17 uniformly apply in respect of all/ the teachers and there is no discrimination or arbitrariness, those teachers who have earlier selected is ineligible to be selected again and there is no discrimination among earlier selected teachers for post of BRPs and CRCs. Even otherwise arbitrariness be seen by the writ court in the context of violation of either legal right or statutory right or fundamental right of the person aggrieved, or in violation of any constitutional or statutory provisions, not otherwise.
9. That earlier also there was provision for eligible educational qualification for selection of BRPs and CRCs, however, considering the Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 29/41 Bihar Special Primary Teacher Appointment Rule, 2010 the introduced the "Zila Samvarg"
in the executive instructions/guideline, 2017. Also considering the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher (Niyojan and Service Condition), Rule, 2012 introduced the Basic Grade of Block and Panchayat Teacher and Graduate grade of the Block level. As per the qualification of the teacher they are eligible to be selected. The BEPC not debarred any particular teacher for selection they are eligible as per their educational qualification, however, higher qualification has been given preference. It is fact that in different review meeting of the State the percentage of school monitored by them in different districts was not encouraging or satisfactory despite repeated directions for improving the monitoring.
10. BRPPs and CRCCs were selected among teachers and it is admitted position which have not been disputed by either of writ petitioners that the BRPs and CRCCs are not substantive post of the teacher and this is a tenure assignment under the scheme without any consideration or emoluments or any financial benefit, and such post are not the Civil post under the State. Once the tenure of BRPs and CRCs completed or they removed from such tenure post for whatever the reason they come Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 30/41 back to the original or substantive post of teacher.
11. Therefore, there is no legal or statutory right of the petitioners is being threatened by said guideline. Therefore, it is improper on the part of the petitioners to claim to get selected as BRP/CRCC as a matter of right. The said guideline issued by the executive as a matter of policy to provide or supervised for providing quality education to the Children of the State of Bihar. It is mechanism developed to supervise or monitor the basic education and provide auxiliary support to the elementary education as per their requirement.
12. Writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution is not maintainable at the instance of the writ petitioners, it is settled law of the land that it is condition precedent for maintainability of writ application that there must be violation of Fundamental right or legal right or statutory right of the person aggrieved, otherwise writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not maintainable at the instance of petitioners. Petitioners have no locus standi to challenge the validity of executive instructions/guideline, 2017 in writ application particularly when there is no violation of their legal or statutory rights.
13. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 14.02.2014 passed in CWJC No. 21055 of Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 31/41 2011, CWJC No. 1489 of 2014 dated 12.03.2014 and order dated 22.04.2015 dismissed the writ application filed by the BRP and CRCC and held that these are not the substantive post, therefore, no statutory right or legal right of the petitioner is threatened, therefore, the writ petition is not maintainable.
14. That it is stated that the said executive instruction/guideline, 2017 issued by the BSPP which is an executive instruction/guideline as a matter of policy is not contrary to any constitutional or statutory provisions. That the said Guideline of selection of Block Resource Person for Block Resource Centre and Cluster Resource Centre Coordinator for Cluster Resource Centre, 2017 is legally valid and enacted by the competent Authority, i.e. BEPC, does not suffer from any legal infirmity. It is settled law that the Court generally do not interfere with policy decision unless such decision are contrary to Constitutional or Statutory provisions.
15. There is no case of the writ petitioners that this instructions/guideline, 2017 issued by BEPC is contrary to any Constitutional or Statutory provisions or there is any legal right or statutory right is being threatened or if they would be removed then they wil be loser in their post or financial benefit attached to this post. Writ petitioners failed to prove that such Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 32/41 executive instruction/guideline, 2017 is contrary to any Constitutional or Statutory provisions.
16. That the earlier executive instruction/guideline, 2011 issued by BEPC in respect of selection of BRPs and CRCs challenged before the Hon'ble Court and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 10.07.2012 passed in LPA No. 941 of 2012 held that court generally do not interfere with policy decision unless such decision are contrary to Constitutional or Statutory provisions. The earlier executive instruction/guideline, 2011 issued by BEPC as a matter of policy and affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court that it was not suffered from any legal infirmity.
17. In the present case also instructions/guideline, 2017 issued by BEPC is not contrary to any Constitutional or Statutory provisions and admittedly not threatened any legal right or fundamental right or statutory right of the writ petitioners, therefore, writ petitions are not maintainable at the instance of writ petitioners, and also in view of earlier judgment rendered by Hon'ble Single Judge and Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court on the same subject matter. In respectful stand that the interference of the writ court may not require in the instant writ applications in such Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 33/41 policy decision taken by BEPC in light of settled law."
18. On consideration of the rival submissions of the parties and on consideration of the written notes of argument of the respondents, the court comes to the conclusion that following questions require consideration and answer in this case:-
1. Weather 2017 Guideline is based on policy decision?
2. Whether the decision to change the eligibility criteria can be termed as policy decision?
3. Whether the respondents are justified in ousting the present incumbents from re-selection and from the zone of selection?
4. Whether the action of the respondents is arbitrary and violative of article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India?
5. Whether the petitioners as teachers have any indefeasible right to deputation as Block Resource Persons and Cluster Resource Coordinator?
6. Whether respondents are competent to prescribe eligibility criteria according to their own sweet will or it should be based on some scientific research Data on the working of the Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource Coordinator and on the failure in achieving the objective and also research and study how to improve the mechanism to yield better results?
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 34/41
7. Whether the introduction of new guideline is in furtherance of improvement of the system?
8. And lastly the scope of judicial review in such matter.
19. In this case at the relevant time the court called for the original records and voluminous records were produced before this court and at the time of closure of hearing records were produced and on the basis of scrutiny of different deliberations which were kept in the file, the court came to a conclusion that the deliberations, which were allegedly the basis of change in the policy decision of the guideline, is not practical assessment of the entire working, but change is on the basis of scant and stray report and not on meticulous assessment of the performance of the Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource Coordinator as a whole in achieving the objective for which the post of BRP or CRC existed.
20. On scrutiny of the materials, the Court does not find any material in the file which is based on any scientific research data or otherwise that by introducing a change and confining the selection to the District Teachers Cadre they will achieve the target of improvement. The change is not on the basis of any study or research but only as experiment.
Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 35/41
21. The challenge as to reasonable classification and nexus to the object sought to be achieved, the court on a scrutiny of the materials, is of the view that the classification is well founded as the regular teachers and the Niyojit Teachers form two different classes. The submission of the petitioners with reference to the judgment in the Bihar Secondary Teachers Struggle Committee, Munger Vs The State of Bihar & Ors. in CWJC No. 21199 of 2013 and analogous cases does not improve the case as that judgment was rendered by the Division Bench only for the purpose of 'equal pay for equal work' and it cannot be taken as a judgment to conclude that the Niyojit Shikshak and regular teachers formed the same class for the purpose of other benefits including for the purpose of deputation as Block Resource Persons and Cluster Resource Coordinator.
22. On consideration of the entire materials available on the record the court is of the considered view that all that the petitioners were claiming in the present batch of writ applications is that they are entitled to be considered for the deputation and selection and reselection for deputation as Block Resource Person and Cluster Research Coordinator. The court is of the considered view that the right to deputation is not a right enforceable unless the statutory rule and service condition prescribes deputation as a Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 36/41 matter of course. The deputationist has neither any right to continue on deputation nor they can claim, as a matter of right, that they should be sent on deputation. It is for the Department where the deputationists are working and it is the Department which may decide whether there is need to take such people on deputation. However, in the matter of selection and appointment or deputation the respondents are required to act reasonably and not to violate Articles 14 and 16. Their challenge that no objective is achieved by such classification is a grey area as from the original file in certain cases there is discussion that in certain cluster and at certain block the performance is not upto mark.
Trial and error is the method adopted in the educational system and in view of the above the Court does not find any substance in the submission of the petitioners that the respondents cannot switch over to a new guideline for improvement in the working of the system. Their contention that the Niyojit Shikshak are no way inferior and incompetent for the purpose of furtherance of the project, does not require any adjudication in the present case for the reason that the Court does not find that by ousting them from the zone of selection any stigma is cast on their quality or their performance. In trial and error system authorities are adopting alternatives to explore the best possible system to yield better Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 37/41 results and as such the court does not find any justification to interfere in the policy decision of 2017. It is to be kept in mind that there is difference between absolutely no material and scant material. Adequacy or inadequacy is not a material to be looked into in the decision making process in exercise of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
23. Adverting to the submission of Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, Sr. Counsel appearing for the petitioners, the court finds that a teacher is a teacher and his deputation and selection as Block Resource Persons or Cluster Resource Coordinator will not confer him status to continue on the post. It is for definite period and after that they are required to revert back to their original place from where they have been selected for posting as Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource Coordinator. In view of the above, the court is unable to approve the submission of Mr. Singh that it has adversely affected the status of the teachers.
24. The Court also does not find any substance in the submission of the writ petitioners that they have a right to reselection. The submission that the Niyojit Teachers in the graduate scale are only eligible, if there is no eligible teacher available in the District Cadre does not make the 2017 Guideline as illegal and arbitrary also does not merit any consideration as the Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 38/41 Court finds that it is the prerogative of the employer and there is no arbitrariness in the decision.
25. Adverting to the submission of Mr Sandeep Kumar that it defeats the legitimate expectation, the court finds the submission unsustainable in the instant case for the reason that reasonable expectation is a procedural safeguard and it is only designed to protect in a given situation where there is a long line of practice which is sought to be altered by the Department. The court does not find in the present case that the practice is in vogue since long and as such the court does not approve the submission of Mr. Sandeep Kumar challenging the change in the guideline on the ground of legitimate expectation particularly in the area where the issue involves the deputation of the category of teacher for selection and posting as Block Resource Persons or the Cluster Resource Coordinator.
26. The submission of Mr Chakrapani does not merit any consideration as in the instant case parties have conceded that on deputation the teachers are not entitled to any monetary benefit which they are going to suffer on account of rendering them ineligible for re-selection or rendering them ineligible for selection. In any view of the matter, the court finds that the original position of the teachers as Niyojit Teachers is not Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 39/41 adversely affected and as such they cannot claim that they should be retained in the project as Block Resource Person and Cluster Resource Coordinator. From the material available on the record the court is not inclined to accept the submission as the deputationists have no right to continue on the post of deputation.
27. So far as the submission of Mr.Abhinav Shrivastava is concerned, when he challenged the Guideline 2017 on the ground of lack of justification and basis for change with reference to the judgment in Bariam Chemical (supra) and his submission at the touch stone of Tata Cellular (supra) for challenging the decision making that in framing of Guideline 2017, the court finds some substance that policy decision has certain distinctive feature, every decision does not partake the character of policy decision; policy decision presupposes study, research, scrutiny of data of past working and study how to improve the working. In the instant case the court does not find any such consideration as to material of failure of entire system while discarding 2013 Guideline and adopting 2017 Guideline. However, the file do indicate that at certain block and cluster the performance was not upto mark and on that basis the respondents have made a departure and introduced 2017 Guideline. Hence, the court finds that in such a Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 40/41 situation the scope of judicial review as to adequacy or inadequacy of material is not available.
28. Although the Court does not find proper justification for change in 2013 Guideline and material to introduce 2017 Guideline with the change in the eligibility criteria but having regard to the totality of the facts situation, the Court is of the view that the scope of judicial review in policy matter is limited, only at the touch stone of Article 14 of the Constitution. On deeper scrutiny of the entire materials, the Court is of the view that the decision is a part of the experiment based on trial and error and not founded on scientific research, scrutiny of data as to failure of the old guideline and prospect of success of 2017 Guideline, yet in the totality of the facts situation when it does not defeat any valuable right of the petitioners as their right as Niyojit Shikshak stands intact, the Court is not inclined to interfere with the decision of the Bihar Education Project by introducing 2017 Guideline. In the totality of the facts situation, the court hope and trust that henceforth the State and its instrumentalities will focus on scientific research, collection of data, scrutiny of data and due deliberation while introducing new guideline.
29. In the peculiar facts and circumstances the Court finds that there is no monetary loss even if in the midway the Block Patna High Court CWJC No.497 of 2018 dt.16-05-2018 41/41 Research Person and Cluster Resource Co-ordinator are reverted back to their original post as Niyojit Shikshak. As the petitioners have no right to retain the post, the Court does not find any justification to interfere and restrain the respondents from reverting back the petitioners to their original position.
30. In the results, the writ applications are dismissed.
(Anil Kumar Upadhyay, J) spandey/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE 17.4.2018 Uploading Date 17.05.2018 Transmission Date