Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 1069 (PAT)

Niranjan Diwakar v. State Of Bihar

2005-12-16

NARAYAN ROY

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the University and JC to SC 3. 2. The petitioner seeks direction upon the respondents to accept his joining and pay him his due salary. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner was selected for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher along with several others by the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as "Commission") on the basis of the advertisement issued and on the recommendation of the Commission the petitioner and similarly situated persons were appointed on the posts of Assistant Teacher. The petitioner was appointed in Elementary School, Rainiva Kharagpur, in the District of Munger and vide order, as contained in Annexure 1, he reported his joining, which was accepted. However, by general order, appointment of the petitioner and similarly situated persons was cancelled vide order, as contained in Annexure 4 and again appointment letters were issued to such persons except the petitioner and one Indra Deo Narayan on the ground that the College, from which the petitioner passed, has been derecognised. Learned counsel further submitted that at the relevant time, when the petitioner passed his B. Ed. examination, the college in question had the recognition, but the same was subsequently derecognised, and, therefore, the petitioner, in no way, could have been excluded and he could have been allowed to join on the post of Assistant Teacher. 4. Learned counsel for the State arid also the respondent University are not disputing this aspect of the matter that at the relevant time; when the petitioner passed the requisite examination, the college in question had the recognition, but the same was subsequently withdrawn with retrospective effect. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner, however, submits that may of the writ applications filed in this Court against the order of termination of services of the persons, who had passed the requisite examination from the college in question, of which recognition was subsequently derecognised, were allowed by this Court in CWJC Nos. 2242 of 2004, 5045 of 2004, 7338 of 2004 and 10450 of 2004 and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated with all back wages. 6. The question under dispute is that the college in question, from where the petitioner passed the requisite examination, has been derecoginsed. The selection of the petitioner, however, is not in dispute. 7. 2242 of 2004, 5045 of 2004, 7338 of 2004 and 10450 of 2004 and the petitioners were directed to be reinstated with all back wages. 6. The question under dispute is that the college in question, from where the petitioner passed the requisite examination, has been derecoginsed. The selection of the petitioner, however, is not in dispute. 7. It is not the case of the respondents that the petitioner was selected on the basis of post educational certificates. 8. This Court in the writ applications, as referred to above, noticing the relevant facts about the derecognition of the college in question held that derecognition of the college in question shall not divest the right of the writ petitioners, which had accrued to them on account of passing of the B. Ed. examination from the said college. The finding of this Court, as referred to above, amply applies in the facts and circumstances of this case. 9. Regard beings had to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is allowed and order, as contained in Annexure 5, so far the petitioner is concerned, is set aside. The respondent authorities are directed to give an appropriate posting of the petitioner on the post of Assistant Teacher in accordance with law and not beyond a period of six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. 10. Before I part with this order, it is observed that in case on inquiry it is found that the college in question had no recognition at the relevant time when the petitioner had passed the B. Ed. examination the respondent authorities may take appropriate action after due notice to the petitioner.