Patna High Court - Orders
Km Khushboo Tiwari @ Kumari Khushboo ... vs The State Of Bihar on 8 May, 2025
Author: Anil Kumar Sinha
Bench: Anil Kumar Sinha
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18666 of 2024
======================================================
1. Km Khushboo Tiwari @ Kumari Khushboo Tiwari D/o Balkrishan Tiwari
R/o Vill. Padari Tiwari, P.O. Dumwalia, P.S. Salempur, District-Deoria, State
Uttar Pradesh.
2. Sandhya Pandey D/o Radheshyam Pandey R/o Vill. Kharaila Sarurpur, P.O.
Tendha, P.S. Kumarganj, Dist. Ayodhya, State Uttar Pradesh.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through its Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bi-
har, New Secretariat, Patna.
2. The Additional Chief Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, New
Secretariat, Patna.
3. The Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
4. The Director (Primary Education), Govt. of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna.
5. The District Magistrate, Madhepura.
6. The District Education Officer, Madhepura.
7. The District Program Officer (Establishment), Madhepura.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Basant Kumat Choudhary, Sr. Adv.
Mr.Shashi Bhushan Kumar
For the Respondent/s : A.C. to G.A. 10
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA
ORAL ORDER
3 08-05-20251. Heard Sri Basant Kumar Choudhry, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners and learned A.C. to G.A. 10 for the State.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the instant writ application has been filed seeking quashing of the memo no. 1341 dated 15.05.2024 (Annexure-P/1) issued by the respondent no. 3 whereby all the District Education Officers, Bi- har and the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Bi- har have been directed to take action against the candidates who Patna High Court CWJC No.18666 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 2/8 were appointed/selected against the unreserved female seats/handicapped seats and hold less than 60% marks in CTET Examination as the relaxation of 5% will not be given to woman candidates/handicapped candidates from outside the State of Bihar from passing marks in the teacher eligibility test and further to quash the memo no. 1585 dated 28.11.2024 by which show cause notice has been issued to the petitioners for cancellaing their appointment.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the BPSC published an Advertisement No. 26/2023 (Annexure- P/4) inviting application from the eligible candidates for appointment of teachers for Primary Schools along with others. Clause-IVA of the Advertisement prescribed the qualification for appointment as a Primary Teacher. The qualification pre- scribed was Intermediate pass along with other qualification i.e. 60% marks in the eligibility test conducted by the CTET. It is next submitted that BPSC issued a corrigendum dated 19.06.2023 (Annexure-P/5 ) whereby the marks obtained in the eligibility test conducted by the CTET was lowered down. The marks required in the eligibility test for BC, EBC and UR(F) was lowered down to 55% and for SC, ST and differently abled candidates to 50%. It is submitted that all the writ petitioners are Patna High Court CWJC No.18666 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 3/8 Intermediate trained candidates and all of them have obtained more than 50% marks in CTET conducted by the CBSE as would manifest from Annexure-P/11. It is further submitted that none of the writ petitioners have got 60% or above marks in the CTET.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners next submits that petitioners, who are women and residents of UP, were eligible in terms of the qualification prescribed by the corrigendum issued by the BPSC on 19.06.2023 for participat- ing in the selection process for being considered for appointment as Primary Teachers. It is further submitted that all the writ petitioners are differently abled and, thus, are covered under the Persons With Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995 read with Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Rules, 1996. The petitioners, thus, applied in pursuance of the Advertisement No. 26/2023 under differently abled category as stipulated in Clause 8(IV) of the advertisement for being considered for appointment on the post of School Teachers in Primary Schools (Class 1-V) as a disabled person.
5. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners next submits Patna High Court CWJC No.18666 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 4/8 that petitioners were selected and thereafter were called for counselling on 22.10.2023. The petitioners participated in the counselling, thereafter provisional appointment letters were issued to them on 02.11.2023 (Annexure-P/8). The petitioners on 16.11.2023 were posted in schools and they joined and started discharging their duty as teachers in the school of their posting. The petitioners were surprised to receive letters no. 1585 dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-P/11) issued by the District Programme Officer, Madhepura directing them to show cause as to why their services be not terminated on the ground that they did not have requisite pass marks of 60% in the eligibility test held by the CTET, as such, the petitioners were not eligible for relaxation of 10% marks obtained in the eligibility test, hence, were not having the requisite qualification for being appointed as Primary School Teachers in terms of the advertisement. The petitioners submitted their reply wherein they stated that similar cases i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 9209 of 2024 (Ibtesham Shaheen Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) along with C.W.J.C. No. 12545 of 2024 (Shweta Yadav Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) are pending adjudication and status quo with regard to such candidates, whose services have not been terminated, has been granted, hence, the authorities should wait for disposal of the aforesaid Patna High Court CWJC No.18666 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 5/8 cases.
6. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the show cause was issued in complete breach of the condition of the advertisement. It is further submitted that what is not disputed rather stands admitted is that initially when the Advertisement No. 26/2023 was issued, a candidate was required to have 60% marks in the eligibility test conducted by the CTET. Further, the required marks in the eligibility test conducted by CTET was lowered down to 55% for BC, EBC and UR(F) and 50% for SC, ST and Disabled Candidates by the corrigendum issued by the BPSC on 19.06.2023. It is next submitted that neither the Advertisement No. 26/2023 nor the corrigendum dated 19.06.2023 even remotely suggested that the said relaxation of marks is only meant for candidates of Bihar and outsiders are not entitled for said relaxation, as such, the authorities now cannot resile from the condition stipulated in the advertisement.
7. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that the Advertisement No. 26/2023 and the corrigendum rightly did not incorporate that women from outside Bihar would not be entitled for such relaxation as the same would have amounted to classifying women otherwise a homogeneous group in the Patna High Court CWJC No.18666 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 6/8 scheme of the Constitution of India based on residence which is impermissible in absence of any law made by the Parliament and, thus, would have breached Article 16 of the Constitution of India which does not permit discrimination based on residence except in accordance with procedure established by law.
8. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners next submits that had the Advertisement No. 26/2023 or the corrigendum dated 19.06.2023 incorporated a clause that women from outside the State of Bihar would not be eligible for relaxation and they can participate only if they have 60% marks in the eligibility test conducted by the CTET in that event the petitioners either would have challenged the advertisement or might not have participated, considering that they do not have the requisite qualification but after the selection process was over without any objection at any stage at the time of selection and appointment and appointment letters were issued, the State now cannot unsuit the petitioners by changing the rules of the games.
9. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that as recorded hereinabove the petitioners are differently abled candidates and are residents of UP and the relaxation has been given under the Disabilities Act and Rules a Central Enactment Patna High Court CWJC No.18666 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 7/8 and not on account of the Bihar Reservation of Vacancies in Posts and Services (for SC, ST and other OBC) Act, 1991. It is further submitted that the State of Bihar cannot discriminate dif- ferently abled candidates based on residence.
10. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that by giving the relaxation in the marks obtained in the eligibility test either conducted by the CTET or BTET is not an aspect of reser- vation. It is further submitted that once the said relaxation has been given without stipulating in the advertisement that the said relaxation is meant only for the candidates residing in the State of Bihar in that event the authorities now cannot pass any order adverse to the interest of the petitioners on the ground that they are residents of UP and thus not entitled for the said relaxation.
11. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners submits that as recorded hereinabove women of this country are a homogeneous lot and they cannot be differentiated unless reason and material exists for their further classification. It is further submitted that classification based on residence would be permissible only by a law made by the Parliament which is not the case here. He submits that in identical matter a co-ordinate bench of this court has granted stay in favour of similarly situated petitioners of C.W.J.C. 18343 of 2024 by order dated 06.02.2025. Patna High Court CWJC No.18666 of 2024(3) dt.08-05-2025 8/8
12. Put up this case on 30.06.2025.
13. In the meantime, memo no. 1585 dated 28.11.2024 (Annexure-P/11) shall remain stayed till further order.
14. It is made clear that this order will bind the authorities only with respect to the petitioners herein.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) praful/-
U