Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 1001 (PAT)

Kumari Kalpana Rani v. State Of Bihar

2002-09-12

NARAYAN ROY

body2002
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board and also JC to SC I for the State. 2. Despite orders dated 9.1.2001 and 19.4.2001 counter affidavit has not been filed on behalf of the respondent State. However, a counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board, respondent no. 4. 3. The writ petitioner is working as an untrained assistant teacher in a Middle School in the District of Nawadah in the State of Bihar and she has prayed for issuance of a direction to the State authorities to hold examination of the training course completed on 10.5.1999 for the petitioner as she has undergone training. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner has already completed the course of training on 10.5.1999, but the examination of this training course is not being held for the reasons best known to the State of Bihar and on this account, she is losing her seniority. 5. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board, it is stated that the Bihar School Examination Board as per Rule 7 of Chapter I of the Bihar School Examination Board Rules, 1963 conducts examination on the terms and conditions laid down by the State Government and for holding the examination of this training course, no such direction has been issued to it to conduct the aforesaid examination, and, in that view of the matter, the examination of the training course could not be conducted by the Board. 6. The writ petitioner has also prayed for issuance of direction upon the State Government to hold examination of the training course, which was completed in the year 1999. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the appointment of the petitioner and others was challenged by the trained graduates in writ jurisdiction before this Court. However, the writ application filed by them was dismissed by this Court and the matter went to the Supreme Courts at the behest of the writ petitioners (Ram Vinay Kumar and ors. However, the writ application filed by them was dismissed by this Court and the matter went to the Supreme Courts at the behest of the writ petitioners (Ram Vinay Kumar and ors. vs. State of Bihar and ors.) and the Supreme Court disposed of the special leave application after hearing the parties and considering the affidavit filed on behalf of the State, and observed as follows: "From the affidavit of Shri Deepak Kumar, it appears that although appointment of Assistant Teachers on the basis of the impugned selection was made in August, 1994 no steps have been taken so far by the State Government for imparting training to the untrained teachers. All that has been said in the affidavit of Shri Deepak Kumar is that the training period of two years is being reduced to one year and the syllabus for the one year course is yet to be prepared. This lackadaisical approach in the matter of imparting training to persons who are required to teach students is indefensible. It is, therefore, directed that the State Government shall take immediate steps to finalise the syllabus and that the training course for training of the untrained teachers should commence from October 1, 1997. It must be ensured that all the untrained teachers, who have been appointed as per the aforementioned selection are duly trained within two years time." 8. Pursuant to the observations made by the Supreme Court, as referred to above, the State Government arranged for training of the untrained teachers and training was imparted to them including the petitioner and the training course, however, was completed on 10.5.1999, but till date examination of this training course has not been held. 9. The respondent State since has not filed any counter affidavit, it is not known to this Court as to what weighed before it for not holding the examination for such training course, as referred to above. However, as per the direction of the Supreme Court, as noticed above, when the State Government has arranged for training of such teachers, it was duty bound to hold the examination for which the training course was completed. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made above, respondent no. However, as per the direction of the Supreme Court, as noticed above, when the State Government has arranged for training of such teachers, it was duty bound to hold the examination for which the training course was completed. 10. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the observations made above, respondent no. 1, the Secretary, Primary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, is directed to hold the examination of the training course, which was completed on 10.5.1999, as referred to in the writ application within a period of six months from today. 11. With this direction/observation, this application is disposed of.