Patna High Court
Md. Shaheed & Ors vs The State Of Bihar & Ors on 5 August, 2015
Author: Mihir Kumar Jha
Bench: Mihir Kumar Jha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.17310 of 2013
===========================================================
1. Md. Shaheed S/O Wakeel Ahamd Vill. - Bheriya, P.O. Kateya, P.S. Kateya,
District - Gopalganj
2. Ali Imam S/O Haider C/O Dr. Jahid Siwani, Makdoom Sarai, Lahera Toli, P.S.
Siwan Town, District - Siwan
3. Ashraf Alam S/O Ajazur Rahman Rahman Market, Naya Bazar ( Aspatal
Road ), P.O. + P.S. Siwan, District - Siwan, Pin - 841226
4. Akhtar Ali S/O Liyaquat Ali Vill. - Ukreri, P.O. Kewatalia, P.S. + Block -
Darauli, Distt. - Siwan, Pin - 841234
5. Parveen Sultana D/O Late Yasin Ahmad Vill. + P.O. Pachalkhi, P.S. Nautan,
Distt. - Siwan
6. Tasnim Bano D/O Md. Rashid Vill. - Narkatya, P.O. Semarya, P.S. Nautan,
Distt. - Siwan, Pin - 841243
7. Makhdoom Tabish S/O Abdul Hamid Vill. + P.O. Sisai, Uttar Tola, Via + P.S.
Tarwara, Distt. - Siwan
8. Haidar Ali S/O Habibullah Vill. + P.O. Lakri, Via - Kishun Pura, P.S.
Basantpur, District - Siwan
9. Md. Saghiruddin S/O Md. Zaimuddin At Chunimari, P.O. Khoda Ganj, P.S.
Bahadurganj, Distt. - Kishnaganj, Pin - 855108
10. Md. Shamin Akhtar S/O Md. Moinuddin Vill. - Desia Toli, P.O. Meharaganj,
P.S. Baahadurganj, Distt. - Kishanganj, Pin - 855108
11. Md. Hasnail Alam S/O Late Baharuddin Vill. - Palas Mani, P.O. + P.S. + Via -
Bahadurganj, Distt. Kishanganj, Pin - 855101
12. Md.Murtaza S/O Md. Ashfaque Vill. - Desia Toli, P.O. Meharaganj, P.S.
Baahadurganj, Distt. - Kishanganj, Pin - 855108
13. Manzarul Quasmi S/O Mazlur Rahman At Chika Bari, P.O. Khoda Gan, P.S.
Bahadurganj, Distt. - Kishanganj, Pin - 855108
14. Nazirul Islam S/O Badruddin At Chika Bari, P.O. Khoda Gan, P.S.
Bahadurganj, Distt. - Kishanganj, Pin - 855108
15. Kumari Arshi D/O Md. Suleman Vill. - Pipradih, P.O. Jhajha, P.S. Jhajha, Distt.
- Jamui
16. Ishrat Perween D/O Md. Ali Vill. + P.O. Tarwan Parasia, P.S. Daraoli, Distt. -
Siwan, Pin - 841435
17. Md. Muzaffarul Islam S/O Md. Ismail Ashrafi Vill. + P.O. Chutia, Via -
Shaambhuganj, P.O. + P.S. - Shambhuganj, Distt. - Banka, Pin - 813211
18. Md. Zeaul Mustafa S/O Md. Ibrahim Vill. + P.O. Rewatith, P.O. + P.S.
Baikunthpur, Distt. - Gopalganj
19. Ruhi Bano D/O Md. Rafique Ansari Vill. - Rauza ( Masihan Tola ), P.O. + P.S.
- Nagra, Chapra
20. Taj Mohammad S/O Asmohammad R/O Orma Nauka Tola, P.O. Hakam, P.S.
Siwan Mufassil, District - Siwan
.... .... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State Of Bihar
2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Education, Bihar, Patna
3. The Director Primary Education, Department Of Education, Bihar, Patna
4. Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Vetenary College, Patna 14 Through Its
Secretary
5. The Secretary, Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Vetenary College, Patna - 14
Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 2
.... .... Respondent/s
===========================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. GAUTAM KUMAR YADAV
For the Respondent/s : Mr. DEVENDRA KR SINHA
===========================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MIHIR KUMAR JHA
CAV JUDGMENT
Date: 05- 08 - 2015
The prayer of the petitioners in this writ application reads
as follows:-
"1(a) To direct the respondent to reinstate the petitioners
as Assistant teacher in their respective place in the
light of order dated 18.7.2013 passed in SLP (Civil)
No. 26824 of 2012 (Yaswant Singh others Vs. The
State of Bihar) passed by Hon'ble Apex Court
whereby and whereunder an order/direction has
been passed that "none of the persons appointed out
of the 34540 vacancies should be disturbed in any
way."
(b) To direct the respondents after reinstatement, treat
the petitioners in service from their initial
appointment and to pay the entire dues salary."
2. Learned counsel for the petitioners in support of the
aforesaid prayer has submitted that after the appointment of the
petitioners had already been made on the post of Assistant Teacher in
pursuance of the advertisement No. 210 of 2010 in the light of the
appointment of 34540 teachers as per direction given by the Apex
Court, the services of the petitioners could not have been terminated
and that too on the ground of their educational qualification being not
in terms of the prescribed rules and the advertisement. In this regard, a
Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 3
strong reliance has also been placed on certain observations made by
the Apex Court in the order dated 18.7.2013 which, according to the
learned counsel for the petitioners, also covers the case of the
petitioners.
3. Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand,
having filed counter affidavit, have sought to explain that the
termination of the service of the petitioners was made not only on the
ground of their not fulfilling the required qualification but also
because there was a clear stipulation in the order of the Apex Court
dated 13.10.2011 that the teachers appointed from the panel approved
by the Apex Court will be put to scrutiny as with regard to their
fulfillment of the qualification as laid down in the rules and the
advertisement and if in course of such scrutiny it was found that any
of the document do not conform to the requirement of the rules, the
concerned authority would be at liberty to take appropriate steps in
respect of such candidate. He has also highlighted the aspect that in
course of verification of the teachers training certificate of the
petitioners, it had been revaled that they had obtained teachers
training qualification of "Moallim-E-Urdu" from "Jamia Urdu
Aligarh (U.P.)" after enactment of National Counsel of Teachers
Training Act (in short NCTE Act) and the institution, in question, did
not have the approval of the NCTE as prescribed both in the Rules
and the advertisement. Learned counsel for the State, therefore, has
Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 4
supported the order of termination of the services of the petitioners,
inasmuch as, in course of scrutiny, their qualification of teachers
training was not found to be valid for the purpose of appointment.
4. In the counter affidavit, reliance has also been placed
on an order passed by the Director, Primary Education dated 7.5.2013
in compliance of a direction given by this Court in CWJC No. 9131 of
2012 wherein the teachers training qualification obtained from same
institution, namely, Jamia Urdu Alligarh and the same qualification
Moallim-E-Urdu from Jamia Urdu Aligarh (U.P.) was held to be not a
valid qualification for appointment of teachers in terms of
Advertisement No. 210/2010. Learned counsel for the State in this
regard has also placed reliance on a judgment of this Court dated
10.9.2012in CWJC No. 13492 of 2012 wherein cancellation of appointment of Md. Anis Ahmad Ansari alike the petitoiner in the light of 34540 teachers in terms of the advertisement no. 210/2010 was upheld on the ground that the teachers training qualification of Shiksha Alankar from the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was not valid on account of its being an unrecognized institution.
5. The facts giving rise to this writ application is not at all in dispute. The petitioners were applicants for the post of 34540 posts teachers. Such post as per advertisement after a marathon of litigation both before this Court as also the Apex Court, the State Government through the Directorate of Primary Education, had Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 5 framed Bihar Special Elementary Teacher Appointment Rule, 2010 (hereinafter to be referred to as „the 2010 Rules‟) and the object/preface of the aforesaid 2010 Rules itself would be sufficient to indicate that such Special Rules were framed by the State of Bihar only in the light of observations and directions of the Apex Court in the case of N.K. Ojha (supra) to exercise the power of one time appointment on the post of teachers in Government Primary Schools in the State of Bihar. It has to be also kept in mind that the Rules for appointment of regular teachers in all the Primary Schools otherwise had already been repealed with effect from 1.7.2006 in terms of Rule 20(i) of Bihar Panchayat Teacher Appointment Rules-2006, which came into force with effect from 1.7.2006 and therefore 2010 Rules were framed and enforced to make appointment on 34540 posts of teachers in government primary schools with the cut off date of 23.01.2006.
6. It would be thus useful to quote the provision of 2010 Rules as was notified by the State Government vide its Notification No. 7/NI 1-61/09/730 dated 8.6.2010, which reads as follows:-
^^izLrkouk%& fcgkj jkT; esa f'k{kd fu;qfDr ls lEcfU/kr iwoZ ds fu;ekoyh] 2003 dks ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; iVuk }kjk fujLr fd;s tkus ds fo:) jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; esa ,l0,y0ih0 la[;k&22882@04 nk;j fd;k x;k FkkA bl ,l0,y0ih0 dks jkT; ljdkj }kjk o'kZ 2006 esa ,d gyQukek nk;j dj okil ys fy;k x;k rFkk jkT; esa f'k{kd fu;kstu ds fy, ubZ fu;ekoyh] 2006 xfBr dh xbZA blds vuqlkj jkT; esa iapk;rh Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 6 jkt laLFkkvksa ds ek/;e ls f'k{kd fu;kstu dh dkjZokbZ dh tk jgh gSA izfroknhx.k us jkT; ljdkj }kjk gyQukesa esa fn;s x;s dfri; rF;ksa dk vuqikyu ugha fd;s tkus ds nkos ds lEcU/k esa ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; esa ,d voekuukokn la[;k&297@2007 nk;j fd;kA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; us fnukad&09-12-2009 dks ,d vkns'k ikfjr djrs gq, fnlEcj 2003 esa izdkf'kr foKkiu esa vafdr 34]540 lgk;d f'k{kd ds inksa ij dsoy izf"kf{kr mEehnokjksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq ^^,d ckj fu;qfDr^^ (One Time Appointment) djus dk funsZ'k jkT; ljdkj dks fn;kA rnuq:i fcgkj ds jkT;iky }kjk fcgkj fo"ks'k izkjafHkd f"k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh] 2010 dh Lohd`fr iznku dh xbZA bl fu;ekoyh ds dfri; fcUnqvksa ds laca/k esa iqu% ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; }kjk vius vkns"k fnukad 12-5-2010 ds }kjk funs"k fuxZr fd;k x;k gSA ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds ]kjk ikfjr vkns"k ds leqfpr fdz;kUo;u gsrq fu;ekoyh esa la"kks/ku dh vko";drk gSA vr,o] Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds vuqPNsn&309 ds ijUrqd }kjk iznÙk "kfDr;ksa dk iz;ksx djrs gq, fcgkj jkT;iky ekuuh; loksZPp u;k;ky; }kjk fnukad 9-12-2009 ,oa fnukad 12-5-2010 dks ikfjr vkns"k ds dk;kZUo;u gsrq jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa f"k{kdksa dh ,d ckj fu;qfDr (One Time Appointment) gsrq fuEufyf[kr fo"ks'k fu;ekoyh cukrs gS%& 1- laf{kIr uke] foLrkj ,oa izkjaHk-& (i) ;g fu;ekoyh ^^fcgkj fo"ks'k izkjafHkd f"k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh^^] 2010 dgh tk ldsxhA
(ii) bldk izlkj laiw.kZ fcgkj jkT; esa gksxk rFkk ;g dsoy ,d ckj fu;qfDr (One Time Appointment) ds fy, ekU; gksxh A
(iii) ;g vf/klwpuk ds fuxZr dh frfFk ls izHkkoh ekuh tk;sxh rFkk 23 tuojh 2006 rd izf"k{k.k izkIr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds lEcU/k esa ,d ckj fu;qfDr (One Time Appointment) dh dkjZokbZ ds i"pkr~ Lor% lekIr gks tk;sxhA 2- ifjHkk'kk,¡-&
(i) ^^foHkkx^^ ls vfHkizsr gS ekuo lalk/ku fodkl Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 7 foHkkx]
(ii) ^^ ftyk laoxZ^^ ds f"k{kd ls vfHkizsr gS ftyk esa iwoZ ls jkT; ljdkj }kjk fu/kkZfjr osrueku ,oa lsok"krksZ ds v/khu fu;qfDr izkjafHkd f"k{kdA
(iii) ^^izkjafHkd fo|ky;^^ ls vfHkizsr gS ,sls fo|ky;
ftlesa oxZ& 1 ls oxZ& V vFkok oxZ& 1 ls oxZ& VII rd dh i<kbZ gksrh gks]
(iv) ^^izf"k{k.k^^ ls vfHkizsr gS dsUnz ;k fdlh jkT;
ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku vFkok jk'Vªh; v/;kid f"k{kk ifj'kn~ ¼,u-lh-Vh-bZ-½ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o'khZ; izf"k{k.k dk fMIyksek ;k lfVZfQdsV vFkok ch-,y-,M- vFkok ch-,M-
dh fMxzhA "kkjhfjd f"k{kd ds fy, U;wure nks o'kksZ dk lfVZfQdsV ¼lh-ih-,M@fcgkj ljdkj }kjk eku;rk izkIr izf"k{k.k laLFkku ls ,d o'khZ; lfVZfQdsV ¼lh-ih-,M-@Mh-ih-,M-½A 3- fu;qfDr gsrq ;ksX;rk-& (i) Hkkjr dk ukxfjd gks rFkk fcgkj jkT; dk fuoklh gksA
(ii) dsUnz ;k fdlh jkT; ljdkj }kjk eku;rk izkIr fo|ky; @egkfo|ky; ls bUVjehfM,V ijh{kk ¼mifu;e V dks NksM+½ mÙkh.kZ gks A blds v/khu fdlh laLFkku }kjk iznÙk rduhdh fMxzh ;k Hkk'kk fo"ks'k dh fMxzh@mikf/k ftldh lerqY;rk dh ekU;rk fcgkj ljdkj dkfeZd ,oa iz"kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx vFkok ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx }kjk f"k{kd in ij fu;qfDr gsrq ugha nh xbZ gS] lfEefyr ugha gSA
(iii) o'kZ 1995 ds iwoZ dsUnz vFkok fdlh jkT; ds }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o'khZ; izf"k{k.k ijh{kk vFkok ch-,M- dh ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gksA o'kZ 1995 ds ckn ,u-lh-Vh-bZ- }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o'khZ; f"k{kd izf"k{k.k fMIyksek ;k ch-,M- vFkok ch-,y-,M- dh ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gksA
(iv) mnwZ f"k{kd ds inksa ds fy, fcgkj enjlk f"k{kk cksMZ ls ekSyoh ¼bUVjehfM,V Lrj½ rFkk lerqY; ijh{kk ikl vFkok bUVjehfM,V ijh{kk esa 200 vadksa ds mnwZ] fo'k; dh ijh{kk ds lkFk Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 8 nks o'khZ; izf"k{k.k ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ gksA
(v) "kkjhfjd f"k{kd ds inksa ds fy, bUVjehfM,V mRrh.kZ rFkk lh-ih-,M-@Mh-ih-,M- dh fMxzh gksA
(vi) ,sls vH;FkhZ] tks fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gSa rFkk o'kZ 1995 ds iwoZ fcgkj jkT; ¼vfoHkkftr½ ds fdlh izf"k{k.k egkfo|ky; ls nks o'khZ; izf"k{k.k mÙkh.kZ gS vFkok lh-ih-,M- mÙkh.kZ gS fdUrq bUVjehfM,V ugha gS] os Hkh fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu ns ldsaxsA fdUrq fu;qfDr ds 4 o'kksZ ds vUnj mUgsa bUVjehfM,V dh ;ksX;rk gkfly dj ysuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 4- fnukad 23 tuojh 2006 rd izf"k{k.k ijh{kk mÙkh.kZ mEehnokj gh vkosnu ns ldsaxsA 5- vk;q& fnukad 23 tuojh] 2006 dks vH;FkhZ dh U;wure vk;q 18 o'kZ rFkk fnukad 31-1-2011 dks vf/kdre mez 60 o'kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksxhA 6- inksa ij fu;qfDr-&foKkfir gksusokys dqy 34]540 inksa ij fu;qfDr dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA buesa 12]862 in mnwZ fo'k; ds rFkk "ks'k 21678 in lkekU; fo'k; ds gksaxsA lkekU; inksa ¼mnwZ inksa dks NksM+dj½ ds dqy 5% inksa ij "kkjhfjd f"k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA vkjf{kr dksfV vFkok mnwZ fo'k; esa vgZrk izkIr vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus ij fjDr inksa dh ojh;rkuqlkj vukjf{kr dksfV ,oa lkekU; fo'k; ds mEehnokjksa ls Hkjk tk;sxkA 7- vkj{k.k-& jkT; ljdkj ds vkj{k.k fu;e ds vuqlkj f"k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA fodykax mEehnokjksa dks fu;ekuqlkj 3% lekukUrj vkj{k.k ns; gksxkA 8- vkosnu izkfIr dh izfØ;k-& (i) fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk fu/kkZfjr vkosnu izi= esa dsoy izf"kf{kr mEehnokj ls gh vkosnu izkIr fd;s tk;saxs A
(ii) vkosnu ds lkFk "kS{kf.kd ,oa iz"kS{kf.kd izek.k i=ksa dh vfHkizekf.kr izfr yh tk;sxh tks laLFkku ds izeq[k vFkok jktif=r inkf/kdkkjh ds }kjk vfHkizekf.kr gksxhA
(iii) vkj{k.k dksfV esa fu;qfDr gsrq nkok djus okys mEehnokjksa ls tkfr izek.k i= fy;s tk;saxsA vuqlwfpr tkfr@ vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds nkok djus okys dks vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh ,oa Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 9 fiNM+k ,oa vR;Ur fiNM+k tkfr esa nkok djus okys dks ftyk inkf/kdkjh vFkok muds }kjk vf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk dzhfeys;j esa "kkfey ugh gksus dk izek.k&i= nsuk gksxkA ,slk ugha djus ij vkj{k.k dk nkok ekU; ugh gksxkA tks mEehnokj tkfr izek.k i= ugha nsaxs vFkok vkjf{kr dksfV esa nkok ugha djsaxs mUgsa lkekU; dksfV dk vH;FkhZ ekudj fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA fodykax mEehnokjksa dks l{ke izkf/kdkj ds }kjk iznÙk fodykaxrk izek.k i= nsuk gksxkA 9- ojh;rk lwph dk fuekZ.k-& izf"k{k.k l= ,oa izf"k{k.k esa izkIr vad dks vk/kkj ekudj dksfVokj vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dh tk;sxhA izf"k{k.k l= ,oa vad leku gksus ij mez dks vk/kkj ekuk tk;sxkA rS;kj lwph ¼l=okj nks o'khZ; izf"k{k.k izkIr mEehnokj ds uke ds i"pkr ch-,M- mEehnokj ds uke rFkk mlds i"pkr~ "kkjhfjd f"k{kd mEehnokj lh-ih-,M- ds ckn Mh- ih-,M- ds uke ds lkFk ½ ls ftykokj ,oa dksfVokj fjfDr ds vuqlkj dkmaflfyax ds vk/kkj ij mEehnokjksa ds uke ftyksa dks Hkst fn;s tk;saxsA 10- fu;qfDr i=-& lHkh ftyk f"k{kk v/kh{kdksa }kjk izkIr mEehnokjksa dh lwph dh laiqf'V ^^fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx^^ ls djkdj vH;FkhZ dks fu;qfDr i= fuxZr fd;s tk;saxsA fu;qfDr ds i"pkr~ muds "kS{kf.kd ,oa iz"kS{kf.kd izek.k i=ksa dh tk¡p djk yh tk;sxhA tk¡p gksus rd mudh fu;qfDr vkSicaf/kd gksxh rFkk osrukfn dk Hkqxrku Hkh vkSicaf/kd gksxkA izek.k&i= xyr ik;s tkus ij mudh fu;qfDr jÌ dj Hkqxrku dh xbZ jkf"k dh ,deq"r olwyh dh tk;sxh rFkk dkuwuh dkjZokbZ Hkh dh tk;sxhA 11- laoxZ-& bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu fu;qDr f"k{kdksa dk ftyk laoxZ gksxkA 12- lsok "kÙkZ-& bl fu;ekoyh ds v/khu fu;qDr f"k{kdksa dk osrueku ,oa lkekU; lsok "kÙksZ ogha gksxh tks iwoZ ds ftyk laoxZ ds fu;qDr f"k{kd ds gSaA fdUrq isa'ukfn gsrq ;s f"k{kd jkT; ljdkj ds va"knk;h isa"ku ;kstuk ls vkPNkfnr gksaxsA 13- inksa dh lekfIr-& bl fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh ds vuqlkj Hkjs tkus okys in Hkfo'; esa fjDr gksus ij Lor% lekIr gks tk;saxs A 14- vihy-& ftyk }kjk fu;qfDr i= nsus vFkok inLFkkiu ds laca/k Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 10 esa dksbZ Hkh vihy lEcfU/kr ftyk ds ftyk inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk fu'ikfnr fd;k tk;sxk] ftudk fu.kZ; vafre gksxkA 15- dfBukbZ dks nwj djus dh "kfDr-& bl fu;ekoyh ds fdlh izko/kku dh O;k[;k djus ;k mls ykxw djus esa gksusokyh dfBukbZ;ksa dks nwj djus dh "kfDr ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx esa fufgr gksaxhA 16- fujlu ,oa O;ko`fÙk-& ;g fu;ekoyh ^^fo"ks'k f"k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh^^ gSA blfy, iwoZ ds fu;kstu fu;ekoyh] 2006 ¼le;≤ ij ;Fkk la"kksf/kr½ dk izHkko bl fu;ekoyh ij ugha iM+sxkA ** (underlining for emphasis)
7. As noted above, the State Government had made Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as „the Commission‟), the nodal agency to prepare the panel for appointment of such teachers and for this purpose, by a separate letter No. 7/NI 1- 61/09 MA 731 dated 8.6.2010, had sent a requisition giving the breakup of 34540 posts for all the 38 districts. This letter of the State Government dated 8.6.2010 being the requisition for filling up 34540 posts is also reproduced herein below:-
^^fcgkj ljdkj] ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx i= la[;k&7@fu0&1&61@09 ek0 731] fnukad 8-6-2010A lsok esa] v/;{k@lfpo] fcgkj jkT; deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iVukA fo"k;& jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa dqy 34540 lgk;d f'k{kdksa dh fu;aqfDr gsrwq fu;ekuqlkj ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dj dkmfUlfyax ds vk/kkj ij vH;FkhZ dk uke ftyksa dks miyC/k djkus gsrq vf/k;kpukA mi;qZDr fo"k; ds laca/k esa dguk gS fd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa fcgkj jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa dqy 34540 f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDRk fnukad 31-8-2010 rd Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 11 iwjh dj yh tkuh gSA f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq eaf=ifj"kn~ }kjk ^^fcgkj fo'ks"k izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh** 2010] vf/klwfpr dh x;h gSA vf/klwfpr fu;ekoyh ds izko/kkuksa ds vUrxZr fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk fufeZr ojh;rk lwph ,oa dkmfUlfyax ds vk/kkj ij ftykokj Hksts tkus okyh lwph ds vk/kkj ij ftyksa esa f'k{kd dh fu;qfDr dh tkuh gSA vr,o f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr ls lacaf/kr ^^fcgkj fo'ks"k izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh] 2010** rFkk jkT; Lrj ij dksfVokj lesfdr fjfDr dh lwph dh izfr layXu djrs gq, vuqjks/k gS fd izklafxd fu;ekoyh ds izko/kkuksa ds vuqlkj dqy 34540 lgk;d f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr gsrq le; ij ojh;rk lwph dk fuekZ.k djrs gq, dkmfUlfyax ds vk/kkj ij ftykokj lwph lacaf/kr ftyk ds ftyk f'k{kk v/kh{kd dks ;Fkk'kh?kz miyC/k djkus dh d`ik dh tk; rkfd ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa ftyksa ds }kjk fnukad 31-8-2010 ds iwoZ f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk ldsaA fu;qfDr gsrq jkT; Lrj ij dksfVokj fjfDr dh la[;k fcgkj ljdkj ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkxA fcgkj fo'ks"k izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh] 2010 ds vuqlkj dqy 34540 inksa ij fu;qfDr gsrq ftykokj inksa dk fooj.kA dz0 la0 ftyk dk uke lkekU; mnwZ in 'kk0 f'k{kd ;ksx in dk in 1 2 3 4 5 6 1 iVuk 10710 574 56 1700 2 ukyUnk 872 391 46 1309 3 Hkkstiqj 537 449 28 1014 4 jksgrkl 924 489 48 1461 5 cDlj 326 154 17 497 6 dSewj 599 212 31 842 7 x;k 864 347 46 1257 8 uoknk 410 182 22 614 9 vkSjaxkckn 484 221 26 731 10 tgkukckn 424 188 22 634 11 vjoy 291 106 15 412 12 eaqxsj 498 152 26 676 13 csxwljk; 578 204 30 812 14 tewbZ 568 141 30 739 15 'ks[kiqjk 104 294 6 404 16 y[khljk; 220 86 12 318 Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 12 17 [kxfM+;k 384 151 20 555 18 Hkkxyiqj 837 314 44 1195 19 ckadk 578 167 30 775 20 lgjlk 506 240 27 773 21 lwikSy 389 292 21 702 22 e/ksiqjk 284 155 15 454 23 iwf.kZ;ka 513 561 27 1101 24 fd'kuxat 299 441 15 755 25 vjfj;k 333 681 18 1032 26 dfVgkj 400 204 21 625 27 lkj.k 836 332 44 1212 28 xksikyxat 648 916 34 1598 29 floku 778 477 41 1296 30 njHkaxk 690 375 36 1101 31 e/kqcuh 458 264 24 746 32 leLrhiqj 548 512 29 1089 33 eqtIQjiqj 790 699 42 1531 34 oS'kkyh 248 147 13 408 35 flrke<+h 641 512 34 1187 36 f'kogj 181 179 10 370 37 iwohZ pEikj.k 818 717 43 1578 38 if'peh 666 336 35 1037 pEikj.k 20594 12862 1084 34540**
8. The Commission, thereafter, had issued its advertisement being Advertisement No. 210/10 wherein the last date for filling up of the application was 19.7.2010 and the same is also reproduced hereinbelow:-
fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx iks-&osVujh dkWyst] iVuk&14 jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa lgk;d f'k{kd in ij fu;qfDr gsrq foKkiu foKkiu la[;k& 210@2010 ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky; ds vkns'k ds vuqikyu esa ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj ds varxZr fcgkj jkT; ds izkjafHkd fo|ky;ksa esa dqy 34540 lgk;d f'k{kdksa ¼osrueku PB-2 ,oa xzsM is&4200½ dh fu;qfDr gsrq jkT; ljdkj }kjk xfBr ^^fcgkj fo'ks"k izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh 2010** ds vkyksd esa fnukad 23-01- Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 13 2006 rd ds izf'kf{kr mEehnokjksa ls vkosnu i= ¼fofgr izi= esa½ vkeaf=r fd;s tkrs gSA 2- fjfDr;ksa dk dksfVokj C;ksjk fuEuor gS%& lkekU; fo"k; mnwZ 'kkjhfjd f'k{kk ;ksx 1- lkekU; 10297 6431 542 17270 2 vuqlwfpr tkfr 3295 2058 173 5526 3 vuqlwfpr tutkfr 206 129 11 346 4 vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ 3707 2315 195 6217 5 fiNM+k oxZ 2471 1543 130 4144 6 fiNM+k oxZ dh 618 386 33 1037 efgyk dqy ;ksx 20594 12862 1084 34540 inkaas dh la[;k vkSicaf/kd gSA 3- fjDr inksas ij fu;qfDr& foKkfir dqy 34540 inksa ij fu;qfDr dh dkjZokbZ dh tk;sxhA vkjf{kr dksfV vFkok mnwZ fo"k; esa vgZrk izkIr vH;FkhZ miyC/k ugha gksus ij fjDr inksa dh ojh;rkuqlkj vukjf{kr dksfV ,oa lkekU; fo"k; ds mEehnokjksa ls Hkjk tk;sxkA 4- ojh;rk lwph dk fuekZ.k& izf'k{k.k l= ,oa izf'k{k.k esa izkIr vad dkks vk/kkj ekudkj dksfVokj vH;fFkZ;ksa dh ojh;rk lwph rS;kj dh tk;sxhA izf'k{k.k l= ,oa vad leku gksus ij mez dks vk/kkj ekuk tk;sxkA rS;kj lwph ¼l=okj nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k izkIr mEehnokj ds uke ds i'pkr ch-,M- mEehnokj ds uke rFkk mlds i'pkr 'kkjhfjd f'k{kd mEehnokj lh-ih-,M- ds ckn Mh-ih-,M- ds uke ds lkFk½ ls ftykokj ,oa dksfVokj fjfDr ds vuqlkj dkmfUlfyax ds vk/kkj ij mEehnokjksa ds uke dh vuq'kalk foHkkx dks Hkst fn;s tk;saxsA 5- 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk& bl in ds fy, fuEukafdr 'kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk vfuok;Z gksxkA ¼i½ dsUnz ;k fdlh jkT; ljdkj }kjk ekU;rk izkIr fo|ky;@egkfo|ky; ls baVjehfM,V ijh{kk ¼mi dafMdk v dks NksM+½ mRrhZ.k gksA blds v/khu fdlh laLFkku }kjk iznRr rduhdh fMxzh ;k Hkk"kk fo'ks"k dh fMxzh@mikf/k ftldh lerqY;rk dh eku;rk fcgkj ljdkj ds lkekU; iz'kklu foHkx ¼iwoZ dkfeZd ,oa iz'kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx½ vFkok ekuo lalk/ku fodkl foHkkx] fcgkj }kjk f'k{kd in ij fu;qfDr@fu;kstu gsrq ugha nh x;h gS] lfEefyr ugha gSA ¼ii½ o"kZ 1995 ds iwoZ dsUnz vFkok fdlh jkT; ds }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k ijh{kk vFkok ch-,M-
Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 14 dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksA o"kZ 1995 ds ckn ,u-lh-Vh-bZ- ds }kjk ekU;rk izkIr laLFkku ls nks o"khZ; f'k{kd izf'k{k.k fMIyksek ;k ch-,M- vFkok ch-,y-,M- dh ijh{kk mRrh.kZ gksA ¼iii½ mnwZ f'k{kd ds inks ads fy, fcgkj enjlk f'k{kk cksMZ ls ekSyoh ¼baVjehfM,V Lrj½ rFkk lerqY; ijh{kk ikl vFkok baVjehfM,V ijh{kk esa 200 vadksa ds mnwZ fo"k; dh ijh{kk ds lkFk nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksA ¼iv½ 'kkjhfjd f'k{kd ds inks ads fy, baVjehfM,V mRrhZ.k rFkk lh-ih-,M-@Mh-ih-,M- dh fMxzh gksA ¼v½ ,sls vH;FkhZ] tks fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gSa rFk o"kZ 1995 ls iwoZ fcgkj jkT; ¼vfoHkkftr½ ds fdlh ekU;rk izkIr izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky; ls nks o"khZ; izf'k{k.k mRrhZ.k gS vFkok lh-ih-,M- @Mh-ih-,M- mRrhZ.k gSa] fdUrq baVjehfM,V ugha gS os Hkh fu;qfDr ds fy, vkosnu ns ldsaxsA fdUrq fu;qfDr ds 4 o"kkSZ dsa vanj mUgsa baVjehfM,V dh ;ksX;rk gkfly dj ysuk vfuok;Z gksxkA 6- vU; ik=rk& ¼i½ Hkkjr ds ukxfjd gks rFk fcgkj jkT; ds fuoklh gksA ¼ii½ fnukad 23-01-2006 rd izf'k{k.k ijh{kk mRrhZ.k gksA 7- vk;q& fnukad 23-01-2006 dks vH;FkhZ dks U;wure vk;q 18 o"kZ rFkk 31-01-2011 dks vf/kdre mez 60 o"kZ ls vf/kd ugha gksuh pkfg,A 8- vkj{k.k& ¼i½ jkT; ljdkj ds vkj{k.k fu;e ds vuqlkj f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA ¼ii½ vkj{k.k dksfV esas fu;qfDr gsrq nkok djus okys mEehnokjksa ls tkfr izek.k i= ds fy, tk;saxsA vuqlwfpr tkfr@vuqlwfpr tutkfr ds nkok djus okys dks vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh ,oa fiNM+k oxZ ,oa vR;Ur fiNM+k oxZ esa nkok djus okys dks ftyk inkf/kdkjh vFkok muds }kjk vf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh ds }kjk dzhehys;j esa 'kkfey ugha gksu dk izek.k i= nsuk gksxkA ,slk ugha djus ij vkj{k.k dk nkok ekU; ugha gksxkA tks mEehnokj tkfr izek.k i= ugha nsaxs vFkok vkj{k.k dksfV esa nkok ugah djsaxs mUgsa lkekU; dksfV dk vH;FkhZ ekudj Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 15 fu;qfDr dh tk;sxhA ¼iii½ fodykax mEehnokjksa dks fu;ekuqlkj 3% lkekukUrj vkj{k.k ns; gksxkA fodykax mEehnokjksa dks l{ke izkf/kdkj ds }kjk iznRr fodykaxrk izek.k i= nsuk gksxkA ¼iv½ fofgr vkj{k.k izek.k i= izLrqr djus ds fy, mEehnokjk ds vkosnu dh frfFk vafre frfFk gksxh] mDr frfFk ds i'pkr~ izLrqr fd;k x;k tkfr izek.k i= vekU; gksxkA] vkSj lacaf/kr mEEkhnokj lkekU; dksfV esa vafdr fd;s tk;saxsA 9- laoxZ ,oa lsok 'krZ& fcgkj fo'ks"k izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh 2010 d v/khu fu;qfDr f'k{kdksa dk ftyk laoxZ gksxk ,oa budk osrueku rFkk lkekU; lsok 'krZsZ ogh gksxh tks iwoZ ds ftyk laoxZ ds fu;qfDr f'k{kd ds gSA fdUrq isa'kukfn gsrq ;s f'k{kd jkT; ljdkj ds va'knk;h isa'ku ;kstuk ls vkPNkfnr gksaxsA vkosnu i= Hkjus gsrq vko';d funasZ'k 10- izfof"V& ¼i½ vkosnu fu/kkZfjr izi= esa ,&4 vkdkj ¼210x297 fe- eh-½ ds eksVs dkxt ij vk;ksx dh csclkbZV http:/bssc.bih.nic.in ls MkmuyksM fd;k tk ldrk gSa vkosnu izi= nks i`"Bksa esa gh gksuh pkfg,A fu/kkZfjr izi= ls vyx] Vafdr] gLrfyf[kr vkosnu Lohdkj ugh fd;s tk;ssxsA bl foKkiu ls layXu vkosnu i= dh Nk;kizfr mijksDr funsf'kr vkdkj ds dkxt ij dj mls O;ogkj esa vki ys ldrs gSA ¼ii½ vkosnu i= dh lHkh izfof"V;ka uhys@dkys ckWy IokbaV isu ls LogLrfyfi esa lkQ&lkQ vafdr djsaA pwfa d vkosnu dEI;wVjhd`r iz.kkyh }kjk izkslsls fd;k tkuk gS] vr% ;g vfuok;Z gS fd vkosnu fu/kkZfjr izi= esa gh gks] mfpr ,oa iw.kZ :Ik ls Hkjk gks vkSj blesa dksbZ la'kks/ku@ifjorZu@vksojjkbfVax ugha gksA vkosnu Hkjus gsrq vaxzsth ds varjk"Vzh; vadksa dks gh iz;ksx djsaA ¼iii½ tks LrEHk ¼dkWye½ mEehnokj ls lacaf/kr u gks vFkok ml ij ykxw u gks] mls (x) dj nsaA ¼iv½ mEehnokj viuh 'kkjhfjd igpku dk ,d fof'k"V fpUg vo'; vafdr djsa tks nwljksa ls mudh igpku i`Fkd dj ldsA Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 16 11- QksVksxzkQ& vkosnu i= ds fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij QksVks fpidkus gsrq NksM+h x;h [kkyh txg esa vafdr funsZ'kksa dk v{kj'k% ikyu djsaA QksVks LVsiy u djsa ;k lsyksVsi ls u lkVsaA xksan ls vPNh rjg fpidk,aA mEehnokj dk QksVks gky ds fuxsfVo ls cus gksus pkfg,A vLi"V QksVks vkosnu vLohd`r dk dj.k gks ldrk gSA 12- vkosnu i= dk izs"k.k& ¼i½ vkosnu i= ds lkFk lHkh 'ks{kf.kd ;ksX;rk laca/kh izek.k i=kas dh Lo- vfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr] tUefrfFk ds lR;kiu ds fy, eSfVzd ;k lh-ch-,l-bZ- ;k vkbZ-lh-,l-lh- ;k vU; jkT; ds cksMZ dk izek.k i=@fiNM+k@vR;ar fiNM=k oxZ ds mEehnokjksa ds fy, ftyk inkf/kdkjh vFkok muds }kjk izkf/kd`r inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr dzhehys;j esa u gksus dk tkfr izek.k i= dh LovfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr ,oa vuqlwfpr tkfr@tutkfr ds mEEhnokjksa ds fy, vuqeaMy inkf/kdkjh }kjk fuxZr tkfr izek.k i= dh LovfHkizefk.kr Nk;kizfr] ¼vkosnu i= ds lkFk LVsiy u djsa½ fyQkQs esa Hkjdj vo'; layXu djrs gq, fucaf/kr Mkd@LihM iksLV ls fu/kkZfjr frfFk rd fuEu irs ij Hksts& ^^lfpo fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iksLV Lohdkj fd;s tk;saxsA gkFkksa&gkFk vFkok vU; fdlh ek/;e ls Hksts x;s vkosnu i= Lohdkj ugha fd;s tk;saxsA ¼ii½ vkosnu Hksts tkus okys fyQkQs ij foKkiu la[;k rFkk ftl f'k{kd ds in ¼lkekU; mnwZ@mnwZin@'kkjhfjd f'k{kd ds in½ ds fy, vkosnu fn;k tk jgk gS] mls vo'; vafdr djsaA ¼iii½ vkosnu i= ds lkFk 22x24 ls- eh- dk ¼vH;FkhZ ds irk ds lkFk½ ,d fyQkQk laayXu fd;k tk;sxk] ftl ij 25 ¼iphl½ :I;s dk fucaf/kr iksLV gsrq Mkd fVdV fpidk gksA 13- vU; vko';d funsZ'k& ¼i½ vkosnu i= ij gLrk{kj dks NksM+dj vaxzsth ds cM+s v{kjks esa gh vkosnu i= Hkjk gksuk pkfg,A vkosnd vkosnu i= ds fu/kkZfjr LFkkuks ij viuk iw.kZ gLrk{kj djsaxsA vkosnu i= ds fu/kkZfjr LFkkuks ij vkosnd ds gLrk{kj ugha jgus ij vkosnu i= jn~n dj fn;k tk;sxkA Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 17 ¼ii½ vkosnd vius uke dh oRrZuh (Spelling) ogh fy[ksaxs tks eSfVzd ds lfVZfQdsV@vad&i= esa vafdr gSA ¼iii½ tUe frfFk& vkosnd ds eSfVzd lfVZfQdsV@vad i= esa tks mudh tUefrfFk ;Fkk frfFk] eghuk vkSj o"kZ vafdr gS ogh vkosnu i= ds ;Fkk fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij fy[ksaA ¼iv½ vkosnd vkosnu i= esa viuk uke] firk dk ;k ifr dk uke] i=kpkj dk laiw.kZ ,oa Li"V irk Hkjsaxs rFkk viuk gLrk{kj fu/kkZfjr LFkku ij djsaxsA vkosnu i= esa fdlh izdkj dk iquysZ[ku (Overwriting)] dkV dwV (Cutting)] foys[ku (Erasing) gksus ij vkosnu i= jn~n dj fn;k tk;sxkA ¼v½ vH;FkhZ viuh gLrfyfi esa gh viuk vkosnu iw.kZ :i ls HkjsaA 14- vafre frfFk& Hkjk gqvk vkosnu o= dsoy fucafa /kr Mkd@LihM iksLV ls bl izdkj Hkstsa rkfd fnukad 19-07-2010 dks la/;k 6-00 cts rd lfpo] fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iks-&osVujh dkWyst] iVuk&800014 dks vo'; izkIr gks tk;sA vU; fdlh Hkh ek/;e ls Hkssts x;s vkosnu i= Lohdkj ugha fd;s tk;saxsA fu/kkZfjr vafre frfFk ds ckn izkIr gksus okys vkosnu vLohd`r dj fn;k tk;sxk vkSj blds fy, vk;ksx drbZ ftEesokj ugha gksxkA 15- vU;kU;& ¼i½ viw.kZ vgLrk{kfjr rFkk foyac ls izkIr vkosnu i= vLohd`r dj fn;k tk;sxkA ¼ii½ fdlh izdkj dh iSjoh djus ;k djkus vFkok xyr ;k viw.kZ lwpuk nsus ij vH;fFkZRo jn~n dj fn;k tk;sxk] ftlds fy, vk;ksx ftEesokj ugha gksxkA lfpo fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iVuk
9. The job of preparation of panel for filling up 34540 posts of teachers however was not easy and when complaints were made before the Apex Court that steps were not being taken by the Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 18 Commission in preparation of the panel strictly as per the Rules, the preparation of such panel came under the scanner of the Apex Court and such panel ultimately was finalized under the orders of the Apex Court in the pending Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 297/2007 in Special Leave Petition No. 22882/2004 as would be evident from the order dated 7.12.2010, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-
"A category-wise details of vacancies along with recommendation status has been filed on behalf of the State of Bihar today. In fact, with regard to the list which had been filed earlier by the State, a response has been filed on behalf of the petitioners from which it appears that there are certain incongruities in the furnished list. However, the said list does not cover all the names included in the list. The State of Bihar is given further four weeks' time to bring out a fresh list in terms of the orders passed on 9th December, 2009 and 12th May, 2010 in order of seniority incorporating each and every candidate and category to which they belong. The exercise undertaken by the State does not reflect such state of affairs. The learned counsel for the petitioner in S.L.P.(Civil)No. 22882/2004 is requested to assist learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar in the exercise so that a complete chart can be made out and after proper scrutiny the candidates can be eliminated from the list. If possible, the objections raised with regard to some of the candidates having taken their B.Ed training from institution which had been de-recognised or un- recognised for the said purpose shall also be provided.
Let this matter be listed once again on 19th January, 2011 at 3.00 p.m. for further consideration. A copy of the list to be finalised and submitted to this Court should be provided to learned counsel for the respondents in the aforesaid Special Leave Petition atleast a week before the next date of hearing. Other intervenors/parties who Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 19 have been impleaded or have been given leave to intervene, may obtain copies of the same from the learned Advocate-on- Record for the respondents in the Special Leave Petition."
10. The Apex Court by an order dated 19.1.2011 having found the issue of preparation of panel to be a jinxed one, had appointed Hon‟ble Justice V.A. Mohta, the retired Chief Justice of Orissa High Court to be the Special Officer in whose presence the panel was to be finalized in the manner prescribed by the Apex Court in its order dated 19.1.2011, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-
"On 7th December, 2010, certain incongruities in the list of eligible candidates furnished by the State of Bihar, were pointed out on behalf of the petitioners. As a result, the State of Bihar was directed to bring out a fresh list within four weeks in terms of the orders passed on 9th December, 2009, and 12th May, 2010, in order of seniority, incorporating the names of each and every candidate and the category to which they belonged. Since the exercise undertaken by the State did not reflect the same, today when the matter is taken up, a fresh list has been filed, but the incongruities still remain. It is also unfortunate that the petitioners were not effectively participating in the exercise, as a result of which the anomalies have not been completely eliminated. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and since we are of the view that the matter should not be allowed to linger any further, we have no other alternative but to direct that the list now submitted be reconsidered once again, but in the presence of the counsel of the respective parties and a senior advocate of this Court. The said exercise may involve three or four different stages. The first stage would be for the petitioners Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 20 and those who have been allowed to intervene, to point out anomalies which according to them, still exist in the list and the same is to be pointed out to the learned counsel for the State of Bihar within two weeks from date. In addition, since a submission has been made by Mr. Upadhyay that certain names have not been included in the list, although they are eligible, he will be entitled to point out the same to the advocate for the State of Bihar within the said period. On receipt of the same, the State shall look into the objections, and, thereafter, arrange to obtain the records relating to each of such candidates in respect of whom such objections are raised. Within two weeks after such objections are filed, the second meeting shall be held in which the learned counsel for the State of Bihar and the other parties shall sit together to work out the anomalies or the incongruities. If necessary, further sittings may be held after four weeks to iron out all the creases, sort out all the anomalies and to work out a final list acceptable to all the parties, and, thereafter, to submit the same to this Court. For the aforesaid purpose, we appoint retired Judge of the Bombay High Court Justice V.A. Mohta, who retired as the Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, to be the Special Officer in whose presence the second and third stages will take place. The learned Special Officer will be associated with the settling of the objections that may be raised and the final list to be submitted under his signature. For the aforesaid purpose, objections, if any, shall be filed before the learned Advocate-on-Record for the State of Bihar by 31st January, 2011. The second meeting is to be convened on 19th February, 2011 at 10.00 a.m. in the Supreme Court Arbitration Centre, M.C. Setalvad Chambers or in the alternative, such meeting may also be held at the Arbitration Hall of the Neeti Bagh Club. At the said meeting the individual applications in respect of which objections are filed will have to be produced. In the event the matter cannot be settled on 19th February, 2011, it may be carried forward to Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 21 the next day i.e. 20th February, 2011. A third meeting, if necessary, may also be convened on 5th March, 2011 on which date the list must be made ready and the list of eligible candidates must be finalised for submission to the Court.
Let this matter be adjourned till 29th March, 2011 at 3.00 p.m. In order that the matter is finally settled, learned counsel of the respective parties are requested to cooperate so that no further adjournment is required to be granted on 29th March, 2011. Learned senior counsel appearing for the parties are requested to render their assistance to finalise the matter. The learned Special Officer will also consider the objections that are raised and will submit a comprehensive report in respect thereafter, with regard to the eligibility of the candidates. The learned Special Officer will be entitled to fix his own remuneration and the same will be borne equally by the parties. Let a copy of this order be made available to the learned counsel of the respective parties and to the learned Special Officer Justice V.A. Mohta."
11. It would thus become clear that now the Apex Court was directly monitoring even the preparation of the panel for appointment on the post of 34540 posts of teacher. The Apex Court again by an order dated 24.2.2011 having found inability on the part of Hon‟ble Justice V.A. Mohta to work as a Special Officer had substituted him by appointing Hon‟ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhaya, a retired Judge of Jharkhand High Court and had issued certain directions which again for the sake of clarity and convenience is quoted hereinbelow:-
"By our order dated 19th January, 2011, we had at Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 22 the invitation of the parties and in order to put an end to the disputes, appointed Mr. Justice V.A. Mohta, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, who retired as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, to be the Special Officer, in whose presence the order of 19th January, 2011, could be worked out. However, the matter was mentioned by the learned Special Officer on 18th February, 2011, not before this Bench, but before the other regular Bench, and the matter was directed to be listed today, for considering the submissions made by the learned Special Officer. In fact, the matter had been mentioned on account of the personal difficulties of the Special Officer so appointed, with a request to relieve him of the assignment.
Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and in view of the fact that it may be more convenient for a retired Judge of a nearby High Court, who is also acquainted with the affairs in Bihar, to discharge the functions as entrusted to the Special Officer under our order of 19th January, 2011, we consider it appropriate to appoint Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya, a retired Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, residing at "Peace Cottage", 58, North Office Para, Doranda, Ranchi (Jharkhand), as Special Officer in place of Mr. Justice V.A. Mohta. All other portions of the order dated 19th January, 2011, will remain in place. The learned Special Officer will be entitled to arrange his own schedule in consultation with Mr. Gopal Singh and Mr. Rakesh Uttamchandra Upadhyay, representing the State of Bihar and group of teachers. Both the learned Advocates will be at liberty to approach Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya for the said purpose.
In addition to the above, a suggestion has been made by Mr. R.P. Bhat, learned senior counsel appearing for some of the petitioners, that the burden of the Special Officer could be lightened, if certain steps are taken by the State authorities, prior to consideration of the matter by the Special Officer. He Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 23 has indicated that those candidates, who had obtained certificates from fake Institutes, could be identified in relation to the Institutes themselves, and a list of such candidates could be prepared separately. It has also been suggested that those candidates, if appointed, who would have less than one year in service, could also be segregated to consider the relief that could be provided to them. A further submission was that one applicant may have made several applications. The same could also be dealt with so that only one of the applications which were complete in all respects, could be taken up for consideration in respect of that applicant. The rest of applications could be rejected.
Since the said suggestions appear to be quite appropriate, the State authorities are directed to take steps in terms of the aforesaid suggestions and to provide the Special Officer and the parties with the said information in the form of charts before the matter is taken up by the Special Officer.
Liberty to mention."
12. Thereafter, the Apex Court again on being informed with regard to certain grievances of the candidates as with regard to their non-inclusion in the panel had passed yet another order on 29.3.2011 giving the opportunity to make their submission before the Hon‟ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhaya, the Special Officer appointed by the Apex Court. To that extent, it would be useful to quote the order dated 29.3.2011, which reads as follows:-
"On 24th January, 2011, while appointing Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya, a retired Judge of the Jharkhand High Court, as Special Officer in place of Mr. Justice V.A. Mohta, to ensure that the directions contained in the order of 19th January, 2011, were implemented, Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 24 we had also indicated that certain steps be taken by the State, which would help in removing anomalies and incongruities in the preparation of the final list, which was to be taken into consideration for the purposes of filling up the vacant posts.
Today, we are informed that Mr. Rakesh
Uttamchandra Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing
for some of the petitioners, had spoken to Mr. Justice
S.K. Chattopadhyaya, and that a copy of the
aforesaid order has also been forwarded to His
Lordship. We are also informed that both Mr. Gopal
Singh, learned counsel appearing for the
respondent-State of Bihar and Mr. Upadhyay,
have been requested by the learned Judge to meet him on
3rd April, 2011, and that the matter has been fixed for consideration on the said date.
However, it appears that the directions, which were indicated in our order of 24th February, 2011, have not yet been fully complied with, although, we are informed by Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel and Mr. Gopal Singh, that a comprehensive list is ready, which contains various details regarding the status of each of the candidates. We are not satisfied with such a list only. We direct the State, in addition to the said list, to prepare the three separate lists, which we had indicated in our order of 24th February, 2011, within 1st April, 2011, and make over copies of the same to the learned Special Officer and Mr. Upadhyay, so that the same can also be scrutinized on behalf of the petitioners, when the matter is taken up by the learned Special Officer. Let this matter be listed for further consideration on 3rd May, 2011. Let this Bench be re-constituted on the said date for the aforesaid purpose.
Since there are a number of petitioners,
who are represented by different counsel, apart from Mr.
Upadhyay, one other counsel representing the other Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 25 petitioners and nominated by them, will be entitled to make submissions before the learned Special Officer on behalf of the petitioners.
Let a compilation of the several orders passed by this Court in this matter be prepared, both by the State as well as by Mr. Upadhyaya, and let copies of the same be made available to the learned Special Officer on 3rd April, 2011."
13. The next order of the Apex Court dated 3.5.2011 would also be an evidence to the fact that the Hon‟ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhaya, the Special Officer appointed by the Apex Court, while finalizing the list and removing the names of the candidates who were said to have passed their teachers training examination from the institution not recognized by the State of Bihar, had slashed it to 92170 as being eligible against the total number of 98408 candidates.
This would be borne out from the relevant portion of the order dated 3.5.2011, which reads as follows:-
"Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned
senior Advocate appearing for the State of
Bihar, has submitted a compilation of the Minutes of
the Proceedings before Mr. Justice S.K.
Chattopadhyaya, a retired Judge of the
Jharkhand High Court, who was appointed as Special Officer vide this Court's order dated 19th January, 2011, to oversee the finalization of the list of eligible candidates for filling up 34,540 vacancies in the post of trained teachers, as identified. From the Minutes of the Proceedings, it appears that a list of eligible candidates totaling 98,408 has been identified and within the said number of eligible candidates, two other groups have been included. One group is from 8 institutions not recognized by the State of Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 26 Bihar and the other comprise candidates from 29 out of the list of 213 un-recognized institutions furnished by the petitioner, which constitute a total of 6,238 candidates. It has been suggested by the learned Special Officer that these two categories of candidates may also be excluded from the list of eligible candidates identified, so that ultimately we are left with 92,170 eligible candidates for filling up the vacant 34,540 posts. In the Minutes of the Proceedings of the Special Officer, three certificates have been referred to, which indicate that the concerned representatives of all the candidates were satisfied with the list as such, and they have no grievance in respect thereof. Although, we were inclined to pass orders on the materials, as placed by the State of Bihar today, there are some candidates represented by some other learned advocates, who had not been served with the copy of the order sheets of proceedings of the Special Officer. The learned Advocates, who are representing those persons, who are either impleaded as parties or were allowed to intervene in the matter, may approach the Registry and obtain copies of the order sheets of proceedings and soft copies of the list finalized by the learned Special Officer. Mr. Gopal Singh is requested to make available sufficient number of copies of the order sheets of proceedings and soft copies of the list to the Registry.
Let this matter be listed 'for orders' on 12 th May, 2011, at 3.30 p.m. and let this Bench be re-constituted on the said date for the aforesaid purpose.
Leave is given to the learned counsel for the State of Bihar to file one set of the Minutes of Proceedings before the learned Special Officer in Court and let the same be kept on the record."
14. The Apex Court in its next order dated 12.5.2011 in fact had given further indulgence to category of candidates who had Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 27 complained that they could not avail the opportunity of hearing before Hon‟ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhaya, the Special Officer and requesting the Special Officer to submit the list by 13th of July, 2011 as would be apparent from the following extract thereof:-
"Further to our order passed on 3rd May, 2011, copies of the report of the Special Officer, Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyaya, was made available, along with the list prepared by the learned Special Officer, to those who had applied for the same. Today, when the matter is taken up, some objections have once again been received from some of the said candidates. Let the objections, which have been filed today be considered by the learned Special Officer and he is requested to complete the finalization of the list after considering the same and to submit the same to this Court on 13th July, 2011.
Let this Bench be reconstituted on 13th July, 2011, at 3.30 p.m. We make it clear that no further objections will be entertained in the matter and the final list is to be submitted, as directed, on the said date.
Let a copy of this order be
communicated to the learned Special Officer, both
through the Registry and also by Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior Advocate appearing for the State of Bihar."
15. From the records, it would appear that pursuant to the aforementioned order of the Apex Court, Hon'ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhaya, the Special Officer appointed by the Apex Court, had submitted his report on 8.7.2011, relevant portion whereof reads as follows:-
"Mr. Santosh Kumar, learned Advocate and Mr. Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 28 Gopal Singh, learned State Counsel are present along with State Officials. Even today no one has appeared on behalf of the petitioner.
However, Mr. Santosh Kumar has gone through the final Seniority List filed before me today, by the State of Bihar through its Standing Counsel Mr. Gopal Singh.
Seniority List settled by me on 01.05.2011 was filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court for its kind consideration on 03.05.2011. After considering the same, the matter was adjourned to 12.05.2011. On the said date, the Hon'ble Court had directed that further objections which were filed on the said date were to be sent to me for consideration. In terms thereof, proceedings were held before me on 24.05.2011, 14.06.2011 and 02.07.2011 at Ranchi. After going through all the objections in detail and hearing parties at length on all dates, hearing was concluded on 02.07.2011 and the State of Bihar was directed to incorporate the changes settled by me and submit the final seniority list on 08.07.2011 at 7:00 for my authentication.
Accordingly, the State of Bihar has today submitted the Final Seniority List. I have been informed that all the pages have been initiated by officials of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, which has been verified by me. Authentication of the list by affixing my rubber stamp on each page and signing the first page and the last page of each volume itself has taken considerable time. Four CDs containing the data have also been signed by me and have been given with the Final Seniority List to Mr. Gopal Singh, learned Counsel for the State of Bihar, for being filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court before the next date of hearing. Perusal of the List shows the following:-
01. Total No. of Application 1,23,149 Received
02. Total No. of Candidate in 94,205 (1 to the merit list 94,205)
03. Total No. of Candidate in 4,790 (94,206 to Unrecognized Institute 98,995)
04. Total No. of Candidates 7,147 (98,996 to in Duplicate List 1,06,142) Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 29 05. Total No. of Candidates 361 in Duplicate List but from Unrecognized Institute
06. Total No. of Candidates 17,007 (1,06,143 in Rejection List to 1,23,149)
07. Total No. of Candidates 1,084 in Rejection list but from Unrecognized Institute
08. Total No. of Candidates 6,235 from Unrecognized Institute
09. As per order of Supreme Court dated 03.05.2011 Total No. of Candidate from unrecognized Institute 6,238 were to be taken out from the merit list and to be kept at the bottom of merit list.
I accordingly settle the Final Seniority List today and submit for kind approval of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the Final Seniority List of 1,23,149 candidates running into 4032 pages for appointment to the post of 34,540 Assistant Teachers to be appointed in the State of Bihar in terms of the orders dated 09.12.2009 & 12.05.2010 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court under the Bihar Special Elementary Teachers Recruitment Rules, 2010 and the advertisement issued thereunder.
Today I have also been informed by the State that objections at Sr. 172 (wrongly typed as 174) was with respect to the candidate who had applied under the General category and not under the Urdu category. Since the candidature of this person has been considered and not rejected by the State, accordingly, my order dated 02.07.2011 stands modified to this extent.
I deem it appropriate to observe that numerous objection petitions have continuously been received till date by me, by the Standing Counsel for the State, by the HRD Department and the Staff Selection Commission. All of these objection petitions received by me till date have been handed over to the State. With respect to a majority of them, at my instance, the State has also prepared a Status Report. Since the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 12.05.2011 is clear that only objections which were filed on 12.05.2011 were to be considered and that no further objections would be Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 30 entertained, the same can not be considered by me.
Before parting, I wish to record my appreciation for the assistance rendered to me by all concerned.
Sd./-
08.07.11 S.K. Chattopadhyaya (Special Officer)"
16. The next order of the Apex Court dated 13.7.2011 would again be the evidence of the fact that even a single grievance of a candidate of not being considered or heard by the Special Officer was taken note of and redressed by the Apex Court in course of its monitoring the preparation of final seniority list as would be evident from the extract of the order dated 13.7.2011, which reads as follows:-
"A submission has been made on behalf of
one, Mr. Avinash Kumar, s/o Shri Babua Nand Pandey,
whose claim was not considered by the learned Special Officer on account of the fact that he was unable to show that he was a party to the proceedings. However, as has been pointed out by Mr. Rama Murti, learned senior Advocate, and as verified from the record, it appears that Shri Avinash Kumar was, in fact, impleaded as a party in the proceedings by order dated 23rd April, 2009. Accordingly, the claim of Shri Avinash Kumar is also to be considered for appointment.
Let it be recorded that the learned Special Officer has furnished the final seniority list. Let this matter be listed for further consideration on 13th October, 2011, and let this Bench be reconstituted on the said date at 3.30 p.m. In the meantime, the State of Bihar shall take steps to finalize the Roster, in terms of the final seniority list. A copy of the final Roster prepared, may also be produced in the Court on that day.
The final seniority list prepared by the Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 31
learned Special Officer, as filed in the Court today, be kept in the custody of the State. Let a copy of the Order Sheet of the proceedings before the learned Special Officer from Order No.6, dated 24th May, 2011, onwards filed in Court today, be kept on the records.
In the meantime, if there are any outstanding dues payable to the learned Special Officer, such payment should also be cleared."
17. The Apex Court, thereafter, on 13.10.2011 had passed a significant and detailed order approving the final merit list by Hon‟ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay, the Special Officer and that order being very relevant is quoted herein below in-extenso:-
"Contempt Petition (C) No.297 of 2007, filed in S.L.P. (C) No.22882 of 2004, arose out of an alleged breach of undertaking said to have been given on 18th January, 2006, by the State of Bihar and the order passed on the basis thereof on 23rd January, 2006, by this Court in S.L.P. (C) No.22882- 22888 of 2004. As we have indicated in our order dated 9th January, 2009, a number of writ petitions had been filed against the State of Bihar, raising issues relating to recruitment of teachers in primary schools. At one stage, it was brought to our notice that on account of changes in the policy, trained teachers who were in place at the time when the undertakings were given, could not be accommodated. Accordingly, we had passed orders directing that the trained teachers who at one time were less than the number of vacant posts, should be given appointment in the vacancies that were available. Subsequently, however, there was some discrepancy as to the number of vacancies available as against the number of teachers to be accommodated. Accordingly, we adopted a figure from an advertisement which had been published for recruitment of primary school teachers and took the number of available vacancies to be 34,540.
We had directed that the said vacancies be filled up Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 32 with the said number of trained teachers as a one-time measure to give effect to the undertakings which had been given on 18th January, 2006 and 23rd January, 2006. Accordingly, without issuing a Rule of Contempt, we had directed that the said vacancies be filled up from amongst the trained teachers, who are available in order of seniority.
Subsequently, however, it came to light
that the number of candidates available were much
more than the number of vacancies and there
were also serious doubts raised about the eligibility of
some of the candidates and some of the institutions from which they alleged to have received their training. In our order of 19th January, 2011, we had indicated that certain incongruities had been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the list of eligible candidates furnished by the State of Bihar.
As a result, the State of Bihar, was directed to bring out a fresh list in terms of the orders which we had passed on 9th December, 2009 and 12th May, 2010, in order of seniority, incorporating the names of each and every candidate and the category to which they belonged. As the lists prepared were disputed, we thought it fit that in order to resolve the anomalies, a neutral person should be entrusted with the work of settling the list over which the dispute had arisen and, accordingly, by the said order we appointed Justice V.A. Mohta, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, who retired as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, as Special Officer in whose presence the list could be settled. However, since Justice Mohta expressed his desire to be relieved of the responsibility, by our order dated 24th February, 2011, while relieving Justice V.A. Mohta of the responsibility of acting as the Special Officer, w appointed Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court in his place, to take up and complete the finalization of the seniority list. Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 33 Subsequently, several sessions were held by the learned Special Officer, at which the parties and the institutions were duly represented by counsel and His Lordship, thereafter, submitted a finalized list of the eligible candidates in order of seniority, taking into consideration the various institutions and the certificates produced by the candidates concerned. On the basis of the said list, we had requested the State of Bihar to prepare a Roster for the purpose of reservation of seats according to the different reserved categories. Such exercise has also been undertaken and completed and the list prepared in terms of the Roster has also been produced in the Court in a sealed cover.
Today, when the matter is taken
up, Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing
for the State of Bihar, has raised some issues, which need to be clarified.
The first issue relates to the claim
of one Shri Abhinesh Kumar, s/o Shri Babua Nand
Pandey, that his case has not been considered by the learned Special Officer on account of the fact that he was not a party to the proceedings. On 13th July, 2011, Mr. Rama Murti, learned senior Advocate, submitted that Shri Abhinesh Kumar had, in fact, been impleaded as a party and, accordingly, we had directed the State of Bihar to consider his place in the seniority list as well. Today, we are informed by Mr. Kailash Vasdev that his position stands at serial number 62,551, which is far beyond the number of vacancies to be filled up. Accordingly, nothing further is required to be said at the present, as far as his claim is concerned.
The second issue which has been raised by Mr. Kailash Vasdev is with regard to the examination of the certificates and other documents that may be produced by the candidate concerned at the time of counselling and appointment. In the Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 34 event, during scrutiny it is found that any of the documents do not conform to the requirements, the concerned authorities will be at liberty to take appropriate steps regarding the said candidate.
The third issue raised was with regard
to the candidates, who are to retire at the
age of 60 by 31st January, 2012, within which
period they would have attained the age of 60 years. It is
no doubt true that this matter has been pending for a long time and there is possibility of some candidates being adversely affected on account of such delay, but at the same time we cannot also overlook the fact that a person cannot be allowed the benefits of appointment without serving the institution for at least some length of time. Accordingly, the cases of the candidates who will be retiring on or before 31st January, 2012, need not be considered for appointment.
Fourthly, the Special Recruitments Rules, which have been framed by the State for the purpose of appointment of primary teachers in these vacancies, shall be deemed to have been modified to the extent of the directions which have been issued by this Court from time to time and also by this order.
There is yet another group of candidates, who claim to be adversely affected by the deliberations and the findings of the learned Special Officer while preparing the list of eligible candidates. It has been claimed by some of the candidates that their institutions have been shown to be unrecognized/fake, whereas from the very same institution other candidates have been found eligible, although, this has not been admitted by Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned senior counsel appearing for the State of Bihar, we feel if that is the case, such candidates should not be deprived of an opportunity in future. Accordingly, we direct that such candidates will be at liberty to apply to the Bihar Staff Selection Commission for reconsideration of their status and Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 35 the status of their institutions in respect of which objections have not been considered by the Special Officer. If such representations are made, the same should be considered and disposed of by the Commission, after giving the candidates an opportunity of hearing and placing their cases before the Commission and if it is found that their cases are genuine, the said candidates should be considered in future vacancies, when other vacancies are available, in order of seniority.
There is one more issue, which has been raised by Mr. Kailash Vasdev, and that will be evident from the chart which has been submitted by him showing the distribution of posts. According to the requirement of the posts for Physical Education Teachers, the number shown is 1084, whereas in terms of the distribution of the number of vacancies amongst 34,540 candidates, the figure shown is 4,972, which means that there is an excess number of posts vis-a-vis the number of candidates actually required. On the other hand, as far as Urdu as a subject is concerned, while the requirement is 12,862 in terms of the distribution of posts, the figure has been shown as 1,509, which falls far short of the required number of candidates. Accordingly, Mr. Vasdev has submitted that the excess number of posts in the Physical Education Subject category may be allowed to be shifted to the Urdu Subject category, which would compensate the Urdu Subject category to some extent. We feel that there is substance in such a submission and, accordingly, we allow such prayer as well. The State Government will be at liberty to transfer the excess vacancies in the Physical Education Group to the Urdu Subject category.
This brings us to the end of a long
and arduous journey regarding the appointment of trained
teachers in terms of the undertaking given in this Court by the State Government. We would like to express Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 36 our deep sense of appreciation to Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay for having undertaken the tedious and painstaking exercise of finalising the list of eligible candidates to be considered for filling up the 34,540 vacancies identified during these proceedings.
We are informed that nothing remains to be paid to the learned Special Officer on account of his remuneration.
We also express our appreciation to all the counsel who appeared and helped us to resolve this matter for the benefit of the large number of trained teachers in Bihar who were waiting for appointment all these years.
Let the original Roster, as well as
the seniority list, which have been produced before us in a
sealed cover and is at present lying in the custody of Mr. Gopal Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the State of Bihar, be sent to the Human Resource Department, Government of Bihar, for implementing this order. We make it clear that since the Roster, as well as the seniority list, have been prepared in terms of the order of this Court, no Court shall entertain any other objections or applications with regard to the same.
The contempt petition, as well as the pending interlocutory applications are also disposed of by this order."
(underlining for emphasis)
18. From reading of the aforesaid order not only containing the history of the entire facts leading to steps being taken for appointment on 34540 posts but also preparation of the final merit list, it would be clear that each and every grievance raised either by even the individuals alike Shri Abhinesh Kumar or the specific group of the persons whose institution were shown to be un-recognized and fake were specifically addressed to by the Special Officer and the Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 37 Apex Court. In fact, the Apex Court had also made it clear that for such of the institutions of the candidates which were declared to be fake/unrecognized and from whom other candidates even of the same academic had been found eligible, the remedy for them was to move the Commission for reconsideration of the status and if the Commission would find their cases to be genuine, they would be considered for "future vacancy".
19. It is again in this order that the Apex Court had settled the issue of distribution of number of vacancies by pointing out that though in the requisition the number of posts of Physical Education Teacher was 1084 but the vacancy in fact was 4972. On the other hand, for the post of Urdu subject, though the requirement was of 12862 teachers the figure of eligible candidates in the list was shown to be 1509. The Apex Court, therefore, had accepted the proposal of the State of Bihar that the excess number of posts of Physical Education subject category should be shifted to Urdu Teachers and liberty was given to the State Government to transfer the excess vacancy of teachers of Physical Education to the teachers of Urdu subject category.
20. The matter in fact for all purposes came to an end with the aforementioned order of the Apex Court dated 13.10.2011 whereafter the process of appointment had started against 34540 posts of teachers strictly as per the list finalized by the Apex Court and Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 38 while 32127 posts had been filled up, 2413 posts had remained vacant.
21. It is a matter of record that in terms of the aforesaid direction of the Apex Court in the order dated 13.10.2011, the Commission, in keeping with the panel position of 94205 eligible candidates, had finalized the names of 34540 candidates strictly in accordance with the provisions made in the rules read with terms of the advertisement and had sought to fill up 28600 posts of general subject teachers, 4827 posts for Urdu subject teachers and 1113 posts from physical subject teacher. Thus, when the panel drawn by the Commission was sent to the Government, it was given a wide circulation as also uploaded on the website of the Education Department on 21.12.2011 for general information to all the candidates. A press communiqué was also issued in the newspaper setting out the time schedule for appointment on 10.1.2012 and the process of appointment was sought to be completed in between 21.1.2012 to 7.2.2012.
22. The appointment of the petitioners, therefore, was also made by the District Education Officer, Gopalganj and the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj vide their orders dated 1.2.2012 and since all the appointment letters are absolutely identical, this Court would reproduce one of such order of the petitioner no.16 as contained in Annexure-1 series, which reads as Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 39 follows:-
dk;kZy;&ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] xksikyxat vkns'k ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh }kjk voekuukokn la[;k 297@2007 eas ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa jkT; ljdkj }kjk iz[;kfir ^^fcgkj fo'ks"k izkjafHkd f'k{kd fu;qfDr fu;ekoyh] 2010** rFkk foHkkxh; funs'k i=kad 64 fnukad 18-01-2012 ds vkyksd esa ftyk ds fy, vuq'kaflr mnwZ f'k{kd ds vH;FkhZ dk izkjafHkd@e/; fo|ky;ksa esa lgk;d f'k{kd ds in ij is cSaM&P2-xzsM is&4200 esa fu;qDr djrs gq, muds uke ds lkeus vafdr fo|kyk;ksa esa ;ksxnku dh frfFk ls inLFkkfir fd;k tkrk gSA& vH;FkhZ dk uke firk@ifr dk uke irk vuq'kaflr ojh;rk inLFkkfir lwph dk dzekad fo|ky; dk uke bZ'kjr ijohu e0 vyh xzk0$iks0&VsM+oka 122 e0fo0djorgh ijfla;k ¼floku½ dqpk;dksV fu;qfDr laca/kh 'krsZ%& ;g fu;qfDr iw.kZr% vLFkk;h gksxhA mEehnokjksa ds fy, fu/kkZfjr lsokdkyhu izf'k{k.k iwjk djus rFkk izek.k i=ksa dh tkap ds mijkUr U;wure ,d lky dk lsok vof/k iwjk gksus ds mijkUr gh lsok lEiq"V dh tk;A 1- mEehnokjksa dh vkilh ojh;rk vk;ksx }kjk vuq'kaflr ojh;rk lwph ds vuq:i gksxhA 2- fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk ;fn fdlh vuq'kaflr mEEehnokj ds laca/k esa dksbZ izfrdwy vuq'kalk izkIr gksrh gS rks rn~uqlkj mEehnokj dh ojh;rk ,oa fu;qfDr izHkkfor gksxhA 3- fu;qfDr i= fuxZr gksus ds 15 fnukas ds vUrxZr inLFkkfir fo|ky; esa ;ksxnku djuk gksxkA 4- fu;qfDr f'k{kdksa dk osrueku ,oa lkekU; lsok 'krsZa ogh gksxk tks iwoZ ds ftyk laoxZ ds fu;qDr f'k{kds ds gSA fdUrq isa'kukfn gsrq ;s f'k{kd jkT; ljdkj ds va'knk;h isa'ku ;kstuk ls vPNkfnr gksaxsA 5- ;ksxnku ds le; flfoy ltZu ds Lrj ls fuxZr LokLF; izek.k i= nsuk gksxkA izek.k i=ksa ds tkap ds mijkUr izek.k i= QthZ@xyr ik;s tkus Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 40 ij fu;qfDr jn~n djrs gq, Hkqxrku dh x;h jkf'k dh ,d eq'r olqyh dh tk;sxh ,oa dkuwuh dkjZokbZ Hkh dh tk;sxhA g0@& g0@& ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½ ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh xksikyxatA xksikyxatA Kkikad 454 @ fnukad 01-02-12** (underlining for emphasis)
23. The underlined portion of the terms and conditions of the appointment of all the petitiones will leave nothing for speculation that the verification of the certificates and its being found to be either forged or incorrect could lead to termination of service of the petitioners. As a matter of fact, when such teachers training certificate of the petitioners were examined, it was found that their teachers training qualification were acquired form Jamia Urdu Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh and were not in conformity with the 2010 Rules and the terms and conditions of the advertisement and the matter was referred to the State Government. The State Government by the order dated 9.5.2012 had held that the qualification acquired from Jamia Urdu Aligarh, U.P. was not in terms of the provision made in the rules and the advertisement. On reading of such order dated 9.5.2012 as contained in Annexure-3, the termination of the services of the such teachers who had obtained their appointment on the basis of their teachers training qualification from Jamia University Aligarh were directed to be cancelled. Consequently, in the district of Mujaffarpur, the appointment was also directed to be cancelled as Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 41 would be evident from reading of the order dated 9.5.2012 of the State Government which for the sake of clarity and convenience is quoted herein below:-
fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkxA vkns'k iVuk] fnukad 09-05-2012 la[;k 7@fo0&18@12&317 ekuuh; loksZPp U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds }kjk voekuuk okn la[;k 297@2007 esa fnukad 13-10-2011 dks ikfjr vkns'k ds vkyksd esa jkT; ds foHkkx ftyksa ds izkajafHkd fon~;ky;ksa esa 34]540 lgk;d f'k{kdksa dh fu;qfDr djus dk funs'k fuxZr fd;k x;kA fu;qfDr ds dze esa dfri; ftyksa ds ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkfj;ksa ds }kjk dqN f'k{k.k@izf'k{k.k egkfo|ky;ksa@laLFkkvksa dh ekU;rk ,oa mu laLFkkvksa ls izkIr izek.k i=ksa dh oS/krk ds laca/k esa ekxZn'kZu dh ekax dh x;hA foHkkx ds }kjk bl fo"k; ij fu.kZ; ysrs gq, funs'kd] izkFkfed f'k{kk ds i=kad&99 fnukad 02-02-2012 ,oa i=kad 124 fnukad 10-02- 12 ds }kjk funs'kd fn;k x;k fd jkT; ds vU nj vFkok jkT; ds ckgj oSlh laLFkk ftldh ekU;rk lafnX/k gks ls fuxZr 'kS{kf.kd@iz'kS{kf.kd izek.k i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr bl 'krZ ds lkFk dh tk ldrh gS fd tkap ds nkSjku laLFkku dks vekU; ik;s tkus vFkok laLFkk }kjk fuxZr izek.k i=ksa dh ekU;rk ugha gksus vFkok izek.k i= dh QthZ gksus dh fLFkfr esa fu;qfDr dks jn~n dj fn;k tk;sxkA lkFk gh mDr vH;fFkZ;ksa ds osrukfn dk Hkqzxrku 'kS{kf.kd laLFkkvksa ds ekU;rk ,oa mlls fuxZr izek.k i=ksa ds lR;kiu ds mijkar gh fd;k tk;sxkA ftyk ds }kjk jkT; ds cgkj ds yXHkx 19 laLFkkvksa dh ekU;rk ,oa muds }kjk iznRr izek.k i=ksa dh oS/krk ds laca/k esa ekxZn'kZu dh ekax dh x;hA ekxZn'kZu ds vkyksd esas funs'kd]] izkFkfed f'k{kk ds Lrj ij izR;sd laLFkku dh ekU;rk ,oa muds }kjk iznRr izek.k i=ksa dh oS/krk ds laca/k esa tkap gsrq frfFk fu/kkZfjr dh x;hA tkap ds dze esa foHkkxh; inkf/kdkjh rFkk ftyk ds inkf/kdkjh laxr vfHkys[kksa ds lkFk mifLFkr gq,A ftyksa ds }kjk vH;fFkZ;ksa dk Hkh mDr tkap ds dze Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 42 eas mifLFkr jg dj viuk i{k j[kus gsrq lwfpr fd;k x;kA mi;qZDr izfdz;k ls tkap ds dze esa eqtiQjiqj ftyk ds }kjk tkfe;k mnwZ vyhx<+ mRrj izns'k ds }kjk iznRr izek.k i= dh eku;rk ds laca/k esa ekxZn'kZu ds fufer laLFkk dh eku;rk ,oa izek.k i=ksa dh oS/krk dh tkap dze'k% fnukad 13-042012 dks dh x;ha miLFkkfir fd;s x;s vfHkys[kksa ,oa izek.k i=ksa dh tkap ls fuEukafdr rF; Li"V gq,%& ¼d½ vH;FkhZ 'kouke ¼ID-OI 201011368) }kjk lefiZr tkfe;k mnwZ vyhx<+ mRrn izns'k ds jftLVzkj ds Lrj ls o"kZ 2008 esa fuxZr ekbYyhe mnwZ ftlds uhps mnwZ VhplZ Vzsfuax vafdr gS dk voyksdu fd;k x;kA pqafd ;g izek.k i= NCTE Act ykxw gksus ckn fuxZr gS vr,o bl laLFkk dh ekU;rk NCTE ls gksuk vko';d gSa NCTE ds Website ij ekU;rk izkIr laLFkkvksa dh lwph ea tkfe;k mnwZ vyhx<+ mRrj izns'k dk uke vafdr ugha gSA ¼[k½ pqafd ;g izek.k i= jftLVzkj ds Lrj ls fuxZr gSa blfy, ;g izrhr gksrk gS fd ;g laLFkk ,oa fo'ofo|ky; gks ldrk gSA bl ifjizs{; esa UGC ls ekU;rk izkIr lwph ls Hkh mDr laLFkk dk feyku fd;k x;k rks ;g Li"V gqvk fd ;g laLFkk fo'ofo|ky; ds :i esa ekU;rk izkIr ugha gSaA mDr rF;ksa ls ;g Li"CV gksrk gS fd tkfe;k mnwZ vyhx<+ mRrj izns'k dh ekU;rk l{ke izkf/kdkj ls izkIr ughas gSaA vr% foHkkxh; fu.kZ; ds vuqlkj ^^tkfe;k mnwZ vyhx<+ mRrj izns'k** ds }kjk fuxZr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vH;fFkZ;ksa dks fu;qfDr jkT; ds fo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kd ds in ij ugha dh tk ldrh gSA g0@& ¼ch0 ds0 jk;½ la;qDr lfpoA Kkikad 7@fo03&18@12317@ iVuk] fnukad 09@05@012**
24. Based on the aforementioned government order, the District Education Officer, Siwan also had cancelled the appointment of the seven teachers, namely, Ali Imam, Ashraf Alam, Akhtar Ali, Smt. Parvin Sultana, Tasnim Bano, Makhdum Tabis and Haidar Ali who too had claimed to have passed the teachers training examination Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 43 by acquiring the qualification of Moallim-E-Urdu from Jamia Urdu Aligarh, U.P. The District Education Officer, Siwan while cancelling the appointments of all the seven persons had also held that their teachers training qualification acquired after NCTE Act , 1995 from the institution namely Jamia University Aligarh being not recognized by NCTE did not fulfill the qualification.
25. It was in this wake that the petitioners were also given a show-cause notice to explain as to why their appointment should not be declared to be illegal as their qualification of teachers training of Jamia Urdu Aligarh, U.P. was not as per the prescribed qualification. All the petitioners were given such show-cause notice on 18.6.2012 whereafter they had filed their show-cause reply and after the orders of their termination of service was passed by the District Programme Oficer (Establishment), Gopalganj on 3.9.2012 and since the order of termination of all the petitioners is identical, this Court would again reproduce the order of termination of service of the respondent no.16, which reads as follows:-
^^dk;kZy;] ftyk f'k{kk inkf/kdkjh] xksikyxatA ¼LFkkiuk 'kk[kk½ dk;kZy;&vkns'k Jherh bZljr izohu mnwZ f'kf{kdk dh vuq'kaflr ojh;rk lwph dzekad 122 vkosnu vkbZ0Mh0 01201002551 ftudh vgrkZ tkfe;k mnw vyhx<+ ¼m0iz0½ ls mnwZ fVplZ Vzsfuax ls izf'kf{kr gS dks bl dk;Zky; ds Kkikad 454] fnukad 01-02-2012 }kjk funs'kd ¼izkFkfed f'k{kk½ fcgkj] iVuk ds i=kad 99] fnukad 02-02-2012 esa fufgr 'krsZ ekU; gksus ds 'krZ ds lkFk e0fo0 djorgh ¼dqpk;dksV½ esa fu;qDr dh x;h FkhA Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 44 funs'kd ¼izkFkfed f'k{kk½ fcgkj ds i=kad 99] fnukad 02-02- 2012 ,oa vuqorhZ i=ad 124 fnukad 10-02-2012 ds }kjk funs'k fn;k x;k Fkk fd jkT; ds vanj vFkok jkT; ds ckgj oSlh laLFkk ftudh ekU;rk lafnX/k gks ls fuxZr 'k{kf.kd@iz'kS{kf.kd izek.k i=ksa ds vk/kkj ij fu;qfDr bl 'krZ ds lkFk dh tkrh gS fd tkap ds nkSjku laaLFkk dks vekU; ik;s tkus vFkok laLFkk }kjk fuxZr izek.k i=ksa dh ekU;rk ugha gksus vFkok izek.k i= QthZ gksus dh fLFkfr esa fu;qfDr dks jn~n dj fn;k tk;sxkA lkFk gh mDr vHkfFkZ;ksa ds osrukfn dk Hkqxrku 'kS{kf.kd laLFkkvksa ds ekU;rk ,oa mlls fuxZr izek.k i=ksa ds lR;kiu ds mijkar gh fd;k tk;sxkA la;qDr lfpo f'k{kk foHkkx] fcgkj ds Kkikad 7fo03&18@12&317 fnukad 09-05-12 }kjk foHkkxh; fu.kZ; lalwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd tkfeyk mnwZ vyhx<+ ¼m0iz0½ ds mnwZ fjlpZ Vzsfuax dk fuxZr izek.k i= ds vk/kkj ij vH;fFkZ;ksa dh fu;qfDr jkT; ds fo|ky;ksa esa f'k{kd ds in ij ugha dh tk ldrh gSA izkIr foHkkxh; funs'k ds vkyksd esa v|ksgLrk{kjh ds dk;kZy; i=kad 2069 fnukad 18-06-2012 }kjk vkils iz'kS{kf.kd izek.k i= dk oS/krk ds laca/k esa Li"Vhdj.k lefiZr djus gsrq ,d i{k dk le; fn;k x;k FkkA mDr lanHkZ esa vkids }kjk lefiZr fd;s x, Li"Vhdj.k esa iz'kS{kf.kd mhxzh@mikf/k dh ekU;rk ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; miyC/k ugha djk;k x;kA iqu% bl dk;kZy; i=kad 3397] fnukad 28-07-2012 ds }kjk f}rh; dkj.k i`PNk djrs gq, lk{; gsrq ,d lIrkg ds le; fn;k x;k fQj Hkh vkids }kjk ekU;rk ds laca/k esa lk{; miyC/k ugha djk;k x;kA vr% mi;qZDr of.kZr ifjis{; ls Li"V gS fd vkids }kjk izf'k{k.k izek.k i= fu;qfDr gsrq fn;k x;k gS og foHkkx }kjk ekU; ugha gS ,ls fLFkfr esa vkidh fu;qfDr jn~n fd;k tkrk gA g0@& ftyk dk;Zdze inkf/kdkjh ¼LFkkiuk½] xksikyxat Kkikad 3786 @¼LFkk0½ xksikyxat fnukad 3-09-12**
26. Let it be noted that the petitioners who were appointed either in the district of Gopalganj or Siwan having been Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 45 removed from service well within six to seven months of their appointment, had already filed CWJC No. 23785 of 2012 assailing their order of termination but even then this fresh writ application for almost identical relief has been filed for their being reinstated in service on the basis of the order of the Apex Court dated 18.7.2013.
Learned counsel for the petitioners in this regard has laid added emphasis on the aspect that when the Apex Court in the order dated 18.7.2013 had made it clear that the appointment of the teachers already made shall not be disturbed, the petitioners' order of termination of their service would deem to have been no longer in existence and, therefore, the petitioners would be entitled for reinstatement of their service even without adjudication of their earlier writ petition, CWJC No. 23785 of 2012.
27. Such submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners seems to be one of desperation. The order of the Apex Court dated 18.7.2013 in fact was passed only in respect of filling up of the remaining vacancies and to that extent, the events taking place after the appointment of the petitioners and others 32127 in all against 34540 posts were made needs to be also taken into account.
28. It is very significant to note here that in course of making appointment from the approved panel/merit list of 94205 candidates when appointments were made against 34540 posts, the State Government not only in keeping with the directions of the Apex Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 46 Court but also keeping with the provisions made in 2010 Rules as well as clause-3 of the Advertisement on account of non availability of adequate number of candidates in reserved category/Urdu subject had decided to fill up the remaining such vacancies from amongst the candidates of unreserved category of the general subjects. This would become more clear from the following table:-
Category or Number of Posts Number of Posts Number of Actual Vacant number subject of Advertised decided to be filled Appointments made of posts teacher up in terms of Rules General 20594 28600 26593 2007 Subject Urdu Subject 12862 4827 4455 372 Physical 1084 1113 1079 34 Training Subject Total 34,500 34,500 32,127 2413
29. It also has to be kept in mind that the process for aforesaid appointment was sought to be completed in respect of entire 34540 posts of teacher and 2413 posts could not be finally filled up on account of constraints during consideration, inasmuch as, 1929 candidates did not turn up for counseling, whereas case of 366 candidates were kept pending for final decision and rest of the 118 candidates were found to be ineligible on account of non fulfillment of the eligibility criteria.
30. The State Government thus having completed the exercise for filling up the 34540 posts of teachers, in which 2413 posts had remained vacant on account of the reasons indicated above in the preceding paragraphs, had also submitted before the Apex Court a status report dated 30.8.2012 which being very relevant for the purpose of understanding the ultimate order passed by the Apex Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 47 Court on 18.7.2013 which is the subject in issue in all these writ applications, is reproduced hereinbelow:-
"Status Report with respect to appointment of 34,540 posts of Assistant Teachers in Elementary Schools in Bihar, in terms of the directions dated 13.10.2011 of this Hon'ble Court, by way of affidavit.
I, Ashutosh, aged about 48 years, son of Late Gurucharan Lal, resident of F-202 Amarkunj Apartment, Vivekanand Marg, Boring Road, Patna, do hereby solemnly affirm and state as under:
1. That I am the Director (Primary), Education Department (erstwhile Human Resource Development Department). I am conversant with the facts and circumstances of his case from a perusal of the recordsof this case in my official capacity. I am authroized to swear this affidavit. Hence I am competent to swear this affidavit.
2. That the Final revised List of 34,540 candidates, in terms of the direction of this Hon'ble Court dated 13.10.2011, was received by the Education Department from the Bihar Staff Selection Commission on 19.12.2011. The Subject-wise and Category-
wise number of candidates required to be appointed was as follows:-
i. General subjects 28,600
ii. Urdu subjects 4,827
iii. Physical 1,113
34,540
3. That the seniority list was uploaded on the website of the Education Department (www.educationibihar.in) on 21.12.2011 for general information to the candidates. A press communiqué was also issued in the newspaper. A press communiqué regarding the Time Schedule for appointment was again published in the important newspaper of the State on 10.01.2012, which was as follows:-
i. District-wise list of 21.01.2012
candidates uploaded
on website
Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 48
www.educationbihar.in
ii verification of Urdu and Physical
certificates/ documents Subject:
23.01.2012 to
25.01.2012
General Subject:
30.01.2012 to
03.02.2012
iii Handing over of Urdu and Physical
appointment letters Subject:
30.01.2012 to
31.01.2012
General Subject:
06.02.2012 to
07.02.2012
4. That in fact, the district-wise list of candidates was uploaded a little earlier on the website on 17.01.2012 itself, instead of the stipulated date of 21.01.2012, for information to the candidates. Detailed instructions were issued to the district authorities for the appointment process and verification of certificates of the candidates on 18.01.2012. The district authorities verified the certificates of the candidates on the announced dates.
5. That the status of the candidates appointed after verification of their certificates is as follows:-
Subjects Posts available Posts filled Posts vacant General Subject 28600 26593 2007 Urdu Subject 4827 4455 372 Physical Subject 34540 32127 2413
6. That the status of the posts which have remained vacant is follows:-
Subject Candidates Candid not Candidates Total absent found fit for whose during appointment appointment counseling is pending General 1636 104 267 2007 Subject Urdu Subject 267 14 91 372 Physical 26 0 8 34 Subject Total 1929 118 366 2413 Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 49
7. That the caste-wise detail of the 1636 candidates of the General Subjects, who have remained absent is given below:-
Unreserved 807 Scheduled Castes 331 Scheduled Tribes 26 Extremely Backward Castes 319 Backward Castes 112 Backward Castes (Women) 41Total 1636
8. That the certificates of the candidates have not been verified from their concerned Boards or Universities before their appointment. The appointment of some candidates, especially the candidates having degrees from other States & Union Territories and from Private Training Institutions has been done on the condition that payment of their salary will take place after the verification of certificates. Verification of certificates by the district authorities is underway.
9. That regarding the First Category, comprising of 1929 candidates who were absent on their date of counseling, it is submitted that the State may be permitted to examine each case afresh and if some candidates are found eligible for appointment in their own caste-wise category and as per the training session up to which the candidates having lower position in the seniority list have been appointed, they may also be appointed.
10. That the Second Category, comprising of 118 candidates who were not found fit for appointment for one reason or another, it is submitted that the State may be permitted to examine their candidature afresh and make appointments, if found in order.
11. That the third category, comprising of 336 candidates whose cases have been kept pending, are mainly of the following two types:-
i. Difference in case category and in training session, as mentioned in the seniority list.
ii. Some doubts about the degree of training and Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 50 bonafide of the candidates due to difference in photograph.
The State may be permitted to examine their candidature and afresh and make appointments, if found in order.
12. That it is respectfully submitted that if this Hon'ble Court permits the State of Bihar to make appointments to the 2413 posts which are remaining vacant, the Seniority List prepared by the Learned Special Officer which had been approved by this Hon'ble Court, subject to some directions, by its order dated 13.10.2011, should also be permitted to be deemed modified to that extent.
13. That the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my knowledge derived from the official records which I believe to be true. No part of the same is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Sd./-
30.8.12 DEPONENT VERIFICATION Verified that the facts stated in the above affidavit are true to my knowledge derived from the official records which I believe to be true. No part of the same is false and nothing material has been concealed therefrom.
Sd./-
30.8.12 DEPONENT"
31. The order dated 18.7.2013 was thus passed by the Apex Court in the light of the aforementioned stand taken by the State in its status report. The order of the Apex court dated 18.07.2013 had itself covered the brief background in which the entire exercise for filling up the post of 34540 vacancies on the post of Teachers in primary school had been undertaken and completed. The said order of Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 51 the Apex Court dated 18.7.2013, therefore, which has a direct nexus for deciding the issue involved in the batch of these writ applications, is also quoted hereinbelow:-
"1. Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 22882-22888 of 2004 were filed by several trained teachers for a direction upon the State of Bihar to appoint them in the vacancies in the post of primary teachers in the State of Bihar. The same was withdrawn on an undertaking given on behalf of the State of Bihar on 18th January, 2006, whereby the State of Bihar committed itself to recruiting and filling up the vacant posts of teachers in primary schools with trained teachers. The undertaking given by the State of Bihar reads as follows:-
"That in the meantime, it has been decided that trained teachers be recruited on the vacant posts available in the State of Bihar. The Bihar Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2003 having been quashed by the Patna High Court, new recruitment rules are contemplated to facilitate recruitment of trained teachers in a decentralized manner, by giving them age relaxation as ordered by the High Court. That Chapters 6 and 7 of the Bihar Education Code relating to oriental education and hostels and messes will be kept in mind, as directed by the Patna High Court, while making recruitment of teachers.
That it is respectfully submitted that since the number of available trained teachers in the State is expected to be less than the available vacancies, no test for selection is required to that extent, a reference to this Bihar Public Service Commission for initiating the process of Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 52 recruitment of trained teachers may not be necessary, and the order of this Hon'ble Court and of the Patna High Court in this regard may be modified"
2. The application made for withdrawal of the Special Leave Petition was disposed of by this Court on 23rd January, 2006. Subsequently, when the State of Bihar failed to abide by its commitments and assurances, the petitioner, Nand Kishore Ojha, filed Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 207 of 2006, and the same was disposed of with a direction upon the State of Bihar to implement the undertaking given earlier, upon a categorical statement being made that priority would be given to the trained teachers in matters of appointment in the said posts.
3. Thereafter, on account of further default on the part of the State of Bihar to honour its commitments, another Contempt Petition, being Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 297 of 2007, was filed and several applications were made in the Contempt Petition by trained teachers similarly situated, for being impleaded as parties to the proceedings. Ultimately, the learned Attorney General appeared before us on 25th August, 2009, and assured us that it was not the intention of the State of Bihar to resile from the undertaking given on its behalf. Since there had been a change in the administrative set up in the State of Bihar, the situation had become more complex and it had become difficult to work out a solution to the problem posed in filling up the vacancies in the post of primary school teachers throughout the State of Bihar. When Contempt Petition (Civil) No. 297 was taken up for consideration, we heard the same along with several interlocutory applications filed by several teaches having individual grievances and reserved judgment.
4. By our order dated 13th October, 2011, on the Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 53 Contempt Petition filed in SLP(C) No. 22882 of 2004, arising out of the breach of undertaking given on 18th January, 2006, by the State of Bihar (illegible) passed on the basis thereof on 23 January, 2006 in the aforesaid SLP, we had passed orders directing that the trained teachers who at one time were less than the number of vacant posts should be given appointment in the vacancies that were available. Subsequently, however, there was some discrepancy as to the number of vacancies available as against the number of teachers to be accommodated. Accordingly, we adopted a figure from an advertisement, which had been published for recruitment of primacy school teachers and took the number of available vacancies to be 34,540. We had further directed that the said vacancies be filled up with the said number of trained teachers as a one time measure to give effect to the undertakings given on 18th January, 2006 and 23rd January, 2006.
5. Subsequently, it came to light that the number of candidates available were much more than the number of vacancies and there were also serious doubts raised about the eligibility of some of the candidates and the genuineness of some of the institutions from which they alleged to have received their training. In our order of 19th January, 2011, we had indicated that certain incongruities had been pointed out on behalf of the petitioners with regard to the list of eligible candidates furnished by the State of Bihar.
6. When the said dispute could not be resolved in terms of the list produced by the State of Bihar, we thought it fit to entrust a neutral person with the work and, accordingly, we had appointed Justice V.A. Mohta, a retired Judge of the Bombay High Court, we retired as Chief Justice of the Orissa High Court, as Special Officer in whose presence the list could be settled. Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 54 However, since Justice Mohta expressed his desire to be relieved of the responsibility, by our order dated 24th February, 2011, while relieving Justice V.A. Mohta, we appointed Mr. Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay, a retired Judge of the Patna High Court in his place, to take up and complete the finalization of the seniority list. After much debate, the list submitted by Justice Chattopadhyay was accepted and in terms of the recommendations made, 34,540 candidates were appointed in different primary schools in the State of Bihar.
7. The matter did not end there. On account of the fact that some of the candidates, who had not appeared before Justice Chattopadhyay, came up with fresh applications in support of their cases and urged that there were various omissions from the final select list, we decided to entertain the said applications, particularly, on account of the directions, which we had given, in our judgment and order dated 13th October, 2011, that no court would entertain any objection or applications with regard to the list of candidates, who had already been appointed, in terms of our earlier order.
8. During the hearing of these applications, special leave petitions and writ petitions, what emerged is that most of the applicants were aggrieved by some defect or the other in the preparation of the select list, which occurred on account of the failure of the candidates to give their relevant particulars to Justice Chattopadhyay.
9. Be that as it may, in the event, some discrepancies had crept in the final select list, the individual grievances contained various anomalies, which it is difficult for us to unravel. Accordingly, we modify our order dated 13th October, 2011, and allow the applicants to approach the High Court for redressal of their Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 55 grievances. We also direct that the applications, special leave petitions and writ petitions filed before us be treated as withdrawn, with liberty to the parties to approach the High Court individually or otherwise, for relief, if any, but without, in any way, affecting the appointments of those teachers who have already been appointed against the vacant 34,540 posts and are working. We have been informed during the hearing that about 2413 posts out of the 34,540 posts were still left to be filled up. All the applications, Special Leave Petitions and Writ Petitions are, therefore, disposed of in the light of the aforesaid observations. We make it clear that none of the persons appointed out of the 34,540 vacancies should be disturbed in any way, but the question of filling up the balance vacancies may be taken into consideration, while disposing of the applications in question."
(underlining for emphasis)
32. From reading of the aforementioned order of the Apex Court dated 18.7.2013 including its underlined portion nothing is left for speculation that it had not only approved the list (panel) prepared by Hon‟ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhyay in capacity of Special Officer but had also approved the selection of 34540 candidates for their appointment as is specifically mentioned in the underlined portion in paragraph no.6 of the aforesaid order. As a matter of fact, the little ray of hope was created in paragraph no.9 of the order which however has to be understood in the context that no appointment already made in terms of the approved panel were to be disturbed. That would mean that even for those 2413 cases where the Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 56 offer of appointment was already under process as per their seniority in the approved panel, they were also not to be disturbed unless their cases was altogether rejected. This also becomes clear from the status report filed by the State of Bihar before the Apex Court on 30.8.2012 as quoted above.
33. It thus becomes clear that the order of the Apex Court dated 18.7.2013 was in no way related to the petitioners whose appointments were made in the month of January to February 2012 and were also removed from service in the month between June to September, 2012 by two separate orders one passed by the District Education Officer, Siwan dated 29.6.2012 and the other passed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Gopalganj dated 3.9.2012.
34. As a matter of fact, even before appointment of the petitioners and others in the light of the 34540 posts of teachers on the basis of the panel prepared by Hon'ble Justice S.K. Chattopadhayaya and approved by the Apex Court, it was made clear by the Apex Court in its order dated 13.10.2011, already quoted above, that the examination of certificates and other documents was to be made at the time of counseling and appointment and in the event during its scrutiny if it was found that any of the document do not conform to the requirement, appropriate steps should be taken against the candidates concerned. Thus, in view of the earlier order of the Apex Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 57 Court dated 13.10.2011, the petitioners cannot be heard to say that their appointment once made could not have been cancelled because of the order dated 18.7.2013 even if they do not fulfill the requisite qualification.
35. The qualification of teachers training was quite specific and was in two parts as would be evident not only from Rule already quoted above but also from the advertisement. In any event , the qualification of teachers training after the year 1995 was to be acquired only from the teachers training college imparting two years training of Diploma or B.Ed. or B.L.Ed. Admittedly, all the petitioners have passed their teachers training examination after the year 1995 from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh which had never been recognized by NCTE. In fact, the exhaustive show-cause reply filed by the petitioners in respect to the show-cause notice also do not mention this fact that their institution was recognized by the NCTE. Secondly, they had not acquired the qualification of B.Ed. or B.L.Ed. Their qualification of Jamia Urdu Aligarh cannot be held to be the qualification of B.Ed. or B.L.Ed. There would be no question of goiong into the issue of equivalence of qualification because there was no provision either in the rule or in the advertisement.
36. Learned counsel for the State is in fact correct and they were in relation to exactly similar matter where the appointment of one of the teacher, namely, Md. Anis Ahmad Ansari who had Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 58 claimed to have passed Shiksha Alankar from the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was cancelled and also upheld by this Court in the order dated 10.9.2012 in CWJC No. 13492 of 2012 wherein it was held as follows:-
"The petitioner can draw no solace from the inclusion of his name in the list of 34,540 persons. Even though the order of the Supreme Court has not been brought on record, the Court has had the benefit of perusing the same in other similar writ applications. The Supreme Court has expressly granted leave to the State Government to examine and verify certificates before appointment.
In 2010(4) PLJR 318 (State of Bihar Vs. Mamta Kumari) (D.B.) the issue whether a qualification of Shiksha Visharad from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, was recognized or equivalent to Intermediate so as to justify appointment as an Assistant Teacher came to be considered. It needs to be noticed that the present institution is also not one of the institutions mentioned in Table-1 of Bihar Education Code and on which the order of the Division Bench relies. It has further been held that in matters of appointment, the issue of equivalence of qualifications and acceptability of the same has to be left to the appointing authorities and the Court cannot substitute its opinion for the same.
The compact disk published by the well accepted Journal (Supreme Court cases) displays a Division Bench order reported in (2003) 97 FLR 21 (Bombay) Coram: H.L. Gokhale and Nishita Mhatre, JJ. disposed on 1.11.2002, with regard to the validity of the present qualification holding as follows:-
"The petitioner has failed to establish that the Shikshan Alanka from the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur was Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 59 equivalent to the B.Ed. degree from a University. The submission of Mr. Gangal that the Recruitment Rules for B.Ed. do not require a degree or diploma in teaching from a recognized institution cannot be accepted as this would lead to ludicrous results. An incumbent to the post of Assistant Teacher would be emboldened to produce certificates from any unrecognized establishment professing to confer the degree without undergoing the rigorous training required for the B.Ed. degree. We have, therefore, to hold that the petitioner did not have a right to be appointed on a regular basis as an Assistant Teacher.
It is not the function of this Court to specify the qualification for being so appointed. If expert bodies like the NCTE or UGC do not consider the degrees of the petitioner as being conferred by recognized institution, it would not be proper for us to confer equivalence. This is because the NCTE would have obviously considered the rigorous training which a B.Ed. degree holder would be required to undergo."
37. As a matter of fact, the issue of validity with regard to qualification of Moallim-E-Urdu from Jamia Urdu Aligarh (U.P.) itself was made subject matter before this Court in CWJC No. 9131 of 2012 and the matter was remitted by order of this Court dated 11.5.2012 to the Director, Research and Training. It would thus be useful to quote the consequential order passed on 7.5.2013 by the Director wherein good and germane reasons have been given in not recognizing the degree of teachers training, namely, Moallim-E-Urdu Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 60 also possessed by the petitioners from Jamia Urdu Aligarh, U.P. The aforesaid order dated 7.5.2013 thus being relevant is quoted herein below:-
fcgkj ljdkj f'k{kk foHkkx vkns'k iVuk] fnukad 7@5@2013 la[;k&12@fofo/k&12@2012 278 @ tkfe;k mnwZ] vyhx<+ uked laLFkk ls eksvkfYye&,&mnwZ fMxzh izkIr dqy 08 ¼vkB½ O;fDr;kasa }kjk ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky;] iVuk ess okn la[;k C.W.J.C. No.- 9131/2012 ¼eqgEEn 'kehe vuoj ,oa vU; ouke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU;½ nk;j fd;k x;k FkkA bl okn esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; ds U;k;kns'k fnukad 11-05-2012 }kjk tkfe;ka mnwZ vyhx<+ uked laLFkk ds izf'k{k.k izek.k i= dh ekU;rk ds izlax ij fLFkfr Li"V djus gsrq funs'kd 'kks/k ,oa izf'k{k.k dks funsZ'k fn;k x;k gSa ekuuh; U;k;ky;
dk funs'k va'k uhps m/k`r gS%&
"Since degrees of teachers'
training course of the pettioners
obtained from Zamia Urdu, Aligarh is
in dispute and it is asserted that
other candidates with the same degree
from the same institution have been
appointed in other districts, this
writ application is also disposed of
in the same terms as contained in the
same order dated 19.03.2012 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 4854 of 2012 with one
modification that he order in this
case is to the Director, Training
instead of Director, Primary
Education."
Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 61
bl U;k; funs'k ds vkyksd esa okn la[;k C.W.J.C. No. 9131/2012 ¼eqgEen 'kehe vuoj ,oa vU; ouke fcgkj jkT; ,oa vU;½ ds lHkh 08¼vkB½ ;kfpdkdRrkZvksa dks viuk i{k j[kus dk volj iznku fd;k x;k rFkk budh lquok;h dh xbZA buds }kjk izLrqr lk{; o vU; rF;ksa dks n`f"V esa j[krs gq, foospuk dze esa v|ksfyf[kr fcUnq LI"V gq,%& 1- vkt dh frfFk esa tkfe;ka mnwZ vyhx<+ ,oa buds }kjk iznRr eksvkfYye&,&mnwZ dh fMxzh jk"Vzh; v/;kid f'k{kk ifj"kn~ }kjk ekU; ugha gSA mi lfpo] ,u0 lh0 Vh0 bZ0 fnYyh }kjk i=kad A58461 fnukad 13-10-2012 ls lwfpr fd;k x;k gS fd "Since, the institution failed to seek recognition of N.C.T.E for its course, it cannot be treated as a valid institution for appointment of a teacher, particularly in respect of those who obtained this qualification, after 1996"
2. lHkh 08¼vkB½ ;kfpdkdRrkZ ;Fkk loZJh eq0 'kehe vuoj ¼l= 2000&01½] lsjkt [kku ¼l= 2001&02½] eks0 ,dcky [kka ¼l= 1999&2000½] eks0 edlwn vkye ¼l= 2000&01½] deyglu ¼l= 2002&04½] gchck [kkrqu ¼l= 1997&98½] eks0 'kCchj vkye ¼l= 2002&04½] eks0 ukS'kkn [kka ¼l= 2002&04½ dk i{k lquk x;k gSa bu lHkh vkB ;kfpdkdrkZ ds l= laLFkku] vad&i= ,oa izek.k i= N.C.T.E. }kjk ekU; ugha gSA ekU;rk fdlh Hkh ljdkj ;k l{ke izkf/kdkj ls Hkh ugha gSa lHkh l= lu~ 1997 ,oa ckn ds l= gS] tks N.C.T.E. ds i=kad A-58461 fnukad 13-10-2012 ds vkyksd esa oS/k (valid) ugha gsA 3- tkfe;ka mnwZ] vyhx<+ uke laLFkku u jkT; ljdkj u ;w0th0lh0 vkSj u gh Mh0bZ0lh0 ls gh ekU;rk izkIr gSa vr% iw.kZ leh{kksijkUr jkT; ds lHkh {ks=h; inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks ;g lwfpr fd;k tkrk gS fd f'k{kd in ds fo:n~/k bu vkB ;kfpdkdRrkZvksa dk f'k{kd in ij fu;qfDr@fu;kstu gsrq eksvkfYye&,&mnWw dh mikf/k ds vk/kkj ij fd;k x;k nkok Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 62 [kkfjt ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS rFkk mUgsa f'k{kd ds in ij fu;qfDr gsrq v;ksX; djkj fn;k tkrk gSA g0@& ¼vf[kys'oj dqekj ikaMs;k½ funs'kd ¼'kks/k ,oa izf'k{k.k½ Kkikad% 12@fofo/k& 12@2012 278 iVuk] fnukad 7@5@2013**
38. Learned counsel for the petitioner having filed compilation of document as also written submissions had sought to lay stress on the aspect that the issue relating to validity of qualification of Moallim-E-Urdu from Jamia Urdu Aligarh (U.P.) is subject matter of LPA No. 1712 of 2012 which has been admitted for final hearing. Let it be noted that LPA 1712 of 2012 arises out of CWJC No. 12436 of 2012 (Md. Noorul Huda Khan & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) wherein with regard to same institution, it has been held as follows:-
"The petitioners are aggrieved by the order dated 9.5.2012 passed by Respondent No.2. It states that the qualification of Moallim-E-Urdu (Urdu Teachers Training) obtained in 1998 from Jamia Urdu Aligarh (U.P.) was not a valid qualification as it did not have NCTE approval and did not figure in the list of approved institutions on the NCTE webside. The petitioners have also obtained the aforesaid qualification from the same institution from 1998 onwards.-----
-----
--------- The petitioners do not deny the fact that the Institution from where they have obtained their training qualification equivalent to B. Ed. is post 1995 and the institution is not recognised by the NCTE. The advertisement in no uncertain terms stated that a candidate, if possessed of a post 1995 training qualification must have it in respect of two years course from an Institution recognised by the NCTE. The Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 63 advertisement also makes it apparent that while for Urdu Teachers qualification equivalent to Maulvi (Intermediate level) as that of the Bihar Madarsa Shiksha Board was also acceptable as basic qualification, but it did not detract from the requirement of a two years training qualification which has to be correlated to Clause 5(ii) of the advertisement having been obtained from an NCTE recognised Institution post 1995.
The submission on behalf of the petitioners that the respondents in that event should not have scrutinised the application of the petitioners and that their names found place in the list approved by the Justice S. K. Chattopadhyaya Committee amounting to tacit acceptance does not meet the approval of the Court. If on the face of the advertisement, the undisputed facts reveal that NCTE recognised qualification post 1995 was mandatory, any error committed by the respondents in selecting and appointing the petitioners cannot vest a right in them to claim continuity of appointment made contrary to the advertisement.
Counsel for the State has aptly referred to letter dated 18.1.2008 that the appointments were being made subject to verification of their certificate. Even that cannot be stretched to the extent of examining acceptability of the qualification as distinct from the genuineness of the certificates. It can bring no relief to the petitioner.
A Division Bench of this Court in 2010 (4) PLJR 318 (State of Bihar v. Mamta Kumari) had the occasion to consider a similar challenge with regard to appointment of Primary Teacher based on qualification acquired from the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan Allahabad, stated by the respondents not to be recognised as a qualification equivalent to Intermediate leading to termination. It was held at paragraph 28 that an appointment based on a qualification not recognised leading to termination could not be faulted with.
The submission on behalf of the petitioners that they were not at fault in any manner and had been mislead by the respondents, cannot lead to grant of relief on basis of Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 64 sympathy on a qualification acquired from an unrecognised institution as observed by the Supreme Court in (1991) 3 SCC 87 (State of T.N. v. St. Joseph Teachers Training Institute) in paragraph 6 as follows:-
"6. The practice of admitting students by unauthorised educational institutions and then seeking permission for permitting the students to appear at the examination has been looked with disfavour by this Court. In N.M. Nageshwaramma v. State of A.P. this Court observed that if permission was granted to the students of an unrecognised institution to appear at the examination, it would amount to encouraging and condoning the establishment of unauthorised institutions. The court declared that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32 or of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should not be frittered away for such a purpose. In A.P. Christians Medical Educational Society v. Government of A.P. a similar request made on behalf of the institution and the students for permitting them to appear at the examination even though affiliation had not been granted, was rejected by this Court. The court observed that any direction of the nature sought for permitting the students to appear at the examination without the institution being affiliated or recognised would be in clear transgression of the provision of the Act and the regulations. The court cannot be a party to direct the students to disobey the statute as that would be destructive of the rule of law. The Full Bench noted these decisions and observations and yet it granted relief to the students on humanitarian grounds. Courts cannot grant relief to a party on humanitarian grounds contrary to law. Since the students of unrecognised institutions were legally not entitled to appear at the examination held by the Education Department of the government, the High Court acted in violation of law in Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 65 granting permission to such students for appearing at the public examination. The directions issued by the Full Bench are destructive of the rule of law. Since the Division Bench issued the impugned orders following the judgment of the Full Bench, the impugned orders are not sustainable in law."
In the facts of the case where absence of NCTE recognition to the Institution is undisputed, issuance of a formal notice to show cause could not have made difference to the ultimate conclusion rendering it a useless formality.
Having said so the Court also reiterates paragraph 35 of Mamta Kumari (supra) that the emoluments of the petitioners pursuant to their appointment can neither be denied nor recovered. Considering that such payments are to be made from the public funds generated by the tax payers money, the State is directed to recover the same from such persons who acted contrary to the advertisement by entertaining such ineligible applications, recommending them for consideration and appointing the petitioners. In no event shall the State bear the liability for official acts done beyond the authority granted to them by the State.
The writ application is dismissed."
39. The operation of the aforementioned judgment of learned Single Judge having been not stayed in the order dated 11.12.2012 in LPA No. 1712 of 2012, this Court will have no difficulty in following the judgment of the learned Single Judge in the case of Md. Noorul Huda Khan (supra) inasmuch as the same squarely and directly covers the cases of the petitioners who too have claimed acquired their qualifiction of traning from the same institution namely Jamia Urdu Aligarh and infact sam e qualification Moallim-E-
Urdu after 1995 at a point of time when recognition of institution by Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 66 NCTE became a condition precedent under N.C.T.E. Act 1993 and was also prescribed in the Rules and advertisement in question.
40. It has to be kept in mind that the petitioners of this case had also wanted to intervene in LPA No. 1712 of 2012 by filing I.A. No. 79 of 2012 but that too was rejected by this Court and therefore they cannot now take shelter of pendency L.P.A. No. 1712 of 2012.
41. The reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar & Ors. reported in 1991 Suppl. (1) SCC 330 is also wholly misconceived. In the case of Shrawan Kumar Jha, the appointments were cancelled on the ground that District Superintendent of Education had no authority to make appointment and not that the appointed persons had no valid teachers training qualification. As a matter of fact, whatever was said was only with regard to the principles of natural justice but in this case, it is found that the petitioners were given such show-cause notice and the impugned order, as quoted above, has been passed after giving them full opportunity to show-cause and/or adduce evidence in support of their teachers training qualification and its being valid as per the terms and conditions of the 2010 Rules and the advertisement.
42. The next judgment relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner of the Apex Court in the case of Suresh Pal & Ors. Vs. Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 67 State of Haryana & Ors. reported in 1987(2)SCC 445 will also have no application to the facts of the present case. In the case of Suresh Pal, it was held that the course undertaken by the petitioners of a private institution was recognized for appointment to government service and during continuance of the course, the same was de-recognized by the government. It was in this context that the Apex Court had held that the Government should recognize the certificate course on such of the circumstance who had joined the course before the date of de-
recognition by making it absolutely clear that the person joining the course after the date of de-recognition would not be entitled for such benefit. This Court fails to understand as to how the judgment of Suresh Pal (supra) would be of any help to the petitioners, inasmuch as, in the rules and the advertisement, it was absolutely made clear that the teachers training certificate of B.Ed. or B.L.Ed. for the period 1995 onwards must be acquired from an institution which has recognition of NCTE. All the petitioners have acquired the qualification of Moallim-E-Urdu from Jamia Urdu Aligarh, U.P. after the year 1995 even when this institution was never recognized by the NCTE.
43. Finally, the reliance placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Basic Education Board, U.P. Vs. Upendra Rai & Ors. reported in 2008(3) SCC 432 will also be of no avail. The Apex Court in that case was Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 68 actually considering the fulfillment of the requirement of training qualification consisting of Basic Teacher's Certificate (BTC), Hindustani Teacher's Certificate, Junior Teacher's Certificate or Certificate of Teaching or any other training course recognized by the Government as equivalent thereto. The issue before the Apex Court in relation to the aforesaid requirement of teachers training course was validity of appointment which was made after circular of the State of Uttar Pradesh dated 11.8.1997 in which only the trained B.T.C. Teachers were to be offered appointment and all other equivalent qualification D.Ed. certificate was cancelled. The Apex Court in that context in paragraph no.14 and 15 had held as follows:-
"14. The respondent admittedly got appointment after the Circular dated 11.8.1997 and hence this Circular applies to him. Admittedly, the respondent does not possess the qualification mentioned in the said Circular. He does not either possess BTC, Hindustani Teaching Certificate, JCT or Certificate of Teaching. The D.Ed. Certificate is no longer regarded as equivalent to BTC after the circular dated 11.8.1997. This was a policy decision of the U.P. Government, and it is well settled that the Court cannot interfere with policy decisions of the Government unless it is in violation of some statutory or constitutional provision. Hence, we are of the opinion that the respondent was not entitled to be appointed as Assistant Master of a Junior Basic School in U.P.
15. Grant of equivalence and /or revocation of equivalence is an administrative decision which is in the sole discretion of the concerned authority, and the Court has nothing to do with such matters. The matter Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 69 of equivalence is decided by experts appointed by the government, and the Court does not have expertise in such matters. Hence it should exercise judicial restraint and not interfere in it."
44. Having held so, the Apex Court had then gone into the aspect that such course of D.Ed. was recognized under the NCTE and having made discussion of the applicability of the NCTE Act had held the view of the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court to be unsustainable as would be evident from the judgment made in paragraph no.16 to 24 of the judgment. Paragraph no.23 and 24 being relevant in this regard is also quoted herein below:-
"23. The impugned judgment also proceeds with the same fallacy. The Division Bench, in our opinion, wrongly relied upon Article 254 of the Constitution. Article 254, as stated above, has no application in this case at all because the two Acts operate in two different fields. In our opinion, the Division Bench, therefore, wrongly held that the respondent (the appellant before the Division Bench) had the requisite qualification for being appointed as an Assistant Master in a Junior Basic School.
24. In our opinion the Division Bench also erred in holding that there was violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. We see no violation of Article 14 by the impugned circular or the advertisement dated 28.4.1999. This aspect of the matter has been discussed in detail in the judgment of the learned Single Judge of the High Court dated 19.12.1997 in writ petition no.33856 of 1997, Hira Mani vs. District Basic Shiksha Adhikari connected with writ petition no.32184 of 1997 Smt. Kiran Kumari vs. State of U.P., Patna High Court CWJC No.17310 of 2013 dt. 05-08-2015 70 and we see no reason to take a contrary view. Hence, the view taken by the Division Bench, in our opinion, is not correct."
45. In the present case of the petitioners, the requirement of teachers training course of B.Ed. or B.L.Ed. from the institution recognized by the NCTE was a condition precedent and, therefore, when the petitioners did not possess either the degree or B.Ed. or B.L.Ed. as prescribed in the Rule or in the advertisement nor ever recognized by NCTE, it has to be held that the petitioners lacked the requisite qualification and consequently, their prayer for reinstatement in service is wholly misconceived both on fact and in law.
46. Since the petitioners have pressed this writ application despite their earlier writ application CWJC No. 23785 of 2012 assailing their order of termination being still pending, the same will have to be governed by the present judgment.
47. In the result, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
48. Let a copy of this judgment be brought on the record of CWJC No. 23785 of 2012.
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J) Patna High Court Dated the 05 August 2015 A.F.R./Rishi/-
U