Patna High Court
The State Of Bihar & Ors vs Naveen Prasad Singh & Ors on 6 October, 2018
Equivalent citations: AIRONLINE 2018 PAT 2206
Author: Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
Bench: Chief Justice, Rajeev Ranjan Prasad
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.1309 of 2017
IN
Civil W rit Jurisdiction Case No. 3932 of 2016
========================================================
1. The State Of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Programme Officer, Siwan.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The Block Development Officer, Lakrini Ganj, Siwan.
6. The Block Education Officer, Lakrinvi Ganj, Siwan.
7. The Block Development Officer, Hussainganj, Siwan.
8. The Block Education Officer, Hussainganj, Siwan.
9. The Block Development Officer, Ziradei, Siwan.
10. The Block Education Officer, Ziradei, Siwan.
11. The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Secretary.
.... Respondents .... Appellants
Versus
1. Naveen Prasad Singh son of Gurusharan Singh resident of
Village : Rustampur, P.O. Hayaghat, Block Hayaghat, District :
Darbhanga.
2. Hari Narain Yadav son of Shiv Nandan Yadav resident of Village :
Parosiya, P.O. Mangal Gardh, P.S. Hasanpur, Sub Division Rosara,
District : Samastipur.
3. Ram Dayal Jha Son of Late Krishnakant Jha resident of Village
Milkee, P.O. Ladaura Dargah, P.S. Kalyanpur, District : Samastipur.
.... Petitioners.... Respondents
With
========================================================
Letters Patent Appeal No. 1310 of 2017
IN
Civil W rit Jurisdiction Case No. 4506 of 2016
========================================================
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education
Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar, Patna.
3. The District Magistrate, Siwan.
4. The District Education Officer, Siwan.
5. The District Programme Officer (Estab.), Siwan.
6. The Block Education Officer, Barhariya, Siwan.
7. The Headmaster-cum-Drawing and Disbursing Officer,
Government Upgraded Middle Schoo, Paharpur, Block -
Barhariya, Siwan.
8. The Bihar School Examination Board, through its Secretary.
..... Respondents ...Appellants.
Versus
Patna High Court LPA No.1309 of 2017 dt.06-10-2018 2
Yogendra Kumar Rai, son of Late Sakal Rai, resident of village -
Bedupur, P.O. - Rampur, Binda Lal, Police Station: Ekma, District -
Saran (Chapra).
......Petitioner ..... Respondents
========================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellants : Mr. Ram Shankar Prasad, Advocate
For the Respon dents : Mr. Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate
========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
And
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD)
Date: 06-10-2018
These two Letters Patent Appeals have been
preferred by State of Bihar, its authorities and the Bihar
School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the
"BSEB") questioning the legality and validity of the
common judgment and order dated 04.10.2016 passed
by the learned writ court in CWJC No. 4506/2016 and
CWJC No. 3932/2016. On the request of learned counsel
representing the appellants, both the matters have been
taken together for hearing in admission matters.
2. It appears that the original writ
petitioners were appointed to the post of Assistant
Teacher, taking into consideration their teachers training
qualification. They are among the appointees whose
cases were considered for appointment during pendency
of the contempt application arising out of the Special
Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22882 - 22888 of 2004. Three
Patna High Court LPA No.1309 of 2017 dt.06-10-2018 3
years after their appointment, they were terminated from
service on the grounds that the teachers training
qualification obtained by them was not from an
institution recognized by the State Government. These
original writ petitioners had their teachers training
certificates from the Non-Government Primary Teachers
Training College, Balughat, Muzaffarpur. The order of
termination of the original writ petitioners were passed
purportedly in the light of the judgment and order of this
court in CWJC No. 17899/2012 (Kanti Kumari Vs. State
of Bihar).
3. On a challenge to the termination of their
appointment, the learned writ court found that the
foundation for the termination order was that the
petitioners had obtained their teachers training
qualification from an institution not recognized by the
State Government but contrary to that the writ
petitioners were able to demonstrate before the learned
writ court a letter of the District Superintendent of
Education-cum-District Programme Officer, Saran dated
10.11.2006(Annexure-3 to the CWJC No. 4506/2016) showing that the college in question from where the petitioners had obtained their teachers training Patna High Court LPA No.1309 of 2017 dt.06-10-2018 4 certificate had the recognition of the State Government for the Session 1983-1985 to 1986-1988, whose examination was held on 20.09.1988. The learned writ court noticed that not only the letter of District Superintendent of Education certifies that the Non- Government Primary Teachers Training College, Balughat, Muzaffarpur had recognition and approval of the State for the Session 1983-1985 to 1986-1988, the position is also confirmed by the certificates issued by the BSEB in respect of the petitioners, copies of which were enclosed with the writ applications. The learned writ court found that the certificates of one of the petitioners in CWJC No. 4506/2016 is placed on record vide Annexure-9 to the supplementary affidavit at page 101, the certificate of the petitioners in second writ petition bearing CWJC No. 3932/2016 has been placed at page 17, 26 & 36 respectively of the second writ petition.
4. In the aforesaid view of the matter, the learned writ court while considering the submissions of the parties observed as under:
" ... .. It can not be disputed that
unless an institution has the
recognition and approval of the State Government, the students from that Patna High Court LPA No.1309 of 2017 dt.06-10-2018 5 very institution would neither be permitted to appear in the examination held by the „Board‟ nor would be granted certificate by the „Board‟. In the present case there is neither any objection by the Examination Board nor have they cancelled the certificate of passing the Teachers Training Examination. ......."
5. The learned writ court also found that the termination of the petitioners in the garb of the order passed by the learned writ court in the case of Kanti Kumari (supra) is wholly misconceived because the direction of this court in the case of Kanti Kumari (supra) was to examine the claim of 2317 applicants to the post which were left out after appointment of the candidates who were found eligible during pendency of the contempt application before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. The learned writ court in the case of the present writ petitioners found that the order passed by this court in Kanti Kumari (supra) in no manner gave opening to the respondents to reopen the appointment made pursuant to the Hon‟ble Supreme Court direction nor there is anything on record to take away the right vested in the petitioners to continue on their posts. Patna High Court LPA No.1309 of 2017 dt.06-10-2018 6
6. While assailing the impugned judgment and order of the learned writ court, learned counsel representing the appellants before us has strenuously argued that the institution from where the original writ petitioners claimed to have obtained the Teachers Training Qualification was not recognized by the State Government, but at the same time, learned counsel could not controvert the existing factual position that the original writ petitioners have been granted their teachers training certificates by the BSEB and it is not the case of the appellants that the certificates brought by the petitioners on record are forged and fabricated certificates.
7. From the impugned judgment and order of the learned writ court also we find that the present appellants who were respondents in the writ petition were given ample opportunity to contest the position arising from Annexure-3 confirming the recognition of the institution. In the background of the certificate issued by the Board but the respondents- appellants could not controvert the said position. In this regard, the observations of the learned writ court are important to take note of as under:
Patna High Court LPA No.1309 of 2017 dt.06-10-2018 7 " ..... ..... This mater was taken up in July, 2016 and since thereafter has been heard on not less than nine occasions when opportunity was granted to the State to contest the position arising from Annexure -3 confirming the recognition of the institution for the Sessions 1983-85 to 1986-88 in the background of the certificate issued by the Examination Board which continues to hold the field. The matter is posted for judgment today and neither the Board counsel nor the State counsel have been able to counter the position existing at Annexure-3 as well as the fact that the certificate issued to the petitioners by the Bihar School Examination Board certifying their qualification of passing the Teachers Training Examination, has not been interfered with. ..... ......"
8. In the aforementioned circumstances where learned counsel for the appellants is unable to controvert the findings of the learned writ court, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order.
9. These Letters Patent Appeals have no Patna High Court LPA No.1309 of 2017 dt.06-10-2018 8 merit, as such both are dismissed but without any cost.
(Mukesh R. Shah, CJ) (Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J) Rajeev/-
AFR/NAFR CAV DATE Uploading Date 09.10.2018 Transmission Date