Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 909 (PAT)

Sanjit Ram v. State Of Bihar

2005-10-04

NAVIN SINHA

body2005
Judgment 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. Nos. 8842/2004 and 10302/ 2004 and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners would be working as Shiksha Mitras. The claim would be for a direction to the respondents to send them for training in distance education. 3. The petitioners 1 to 6 and 9 in CWJC No. 10302/2004 would be persons holding Intermediate qualification. Petitioners 7 & 8 would have left performing duties of Shiksha Mitra and would therefore be out of the purview of this order. Petitioner no. 10 would have appeared for the Intermediate examination and the results are awaited. The petitioners 1 to 6 and 9 would be in their third and final term of contractual appointment. 4. At the relevant point of time when the petitioners in both the applications came to be appointed as Shiksha Mitra the Minimum qualification required for the post was Matric or equivalent examination with minimum 45% marks. The procedure prescribed by the Government provides that a person could be appointed as a Shiksha Mitra initially for 11 months which could be extended for a maximum of two occasions for 11 months each. 5. The submission in CWJC No. 8842/ 2004 is that the petitioners having been appointed fulfilling the minimum qualification of matriculate there was no justification for the respondents to deny them opportunity of training in distance education by restricting the same only to those holding intermediate qualification only. The fact that subsequently the qualifications for appointment of Shiksha Mitra may have been changed-from 11.8.2004 requiring them to possess .minimum qualification of intermediate could not work to the prejudice of the petitioners by refusing to send them for training. Doing so would virtually amount to a sub-classification of Shiksha Mitra which would not be permissible under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The fact that the requirement for appointment of Shiksha Mitra may have been changed subsequently would be an entirely different matter. The petitioners could obtain training but their claim for appointment after such training would undoubtedly remain subject to their fulfilling other criteria for such appointment as on the date when their case may come up for consideration. The fact that the requirement for appointment of Shiksha Mitra may have been changed subsequently would be an entirely different matter. The petitioners could obtain training but their claim for appointment after such training would undoubtedly remain subject to their fulfilling other criteria for such appointment as on the date when their case may come up for consideration. Learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 8842/2004 was emphatic in his submission that notwithstanding that the petitioners may have obtained training of distance education yet when the occasion came for their case to be considered for renewal of contractual appointment for third occasion they would have to fulfil requirement for appointment as Shiksha Mitra laid down by the Government notification dated 11.8.2004 which would required them to be Intermediate qualified. 6. Learned Counsel for the State would submit that the State having changed the qualification for recruitment on the post of Shiksha Mitra, the petitioners could not have claimed to be sent for training as they did not possess the qualification of Intermediate. Learned Counsel for the respondent State would further contend that the right of the petitioners to be considered for being sent for training in distance education would arise only in the event that the State would send any Shiksha Mitra for training, whether being Intermediate or otherwise. 7. This Court would find that the petitioners would have been recruited at a time when the minimum qualification prescribed was Matriculate. In that background to create a sub-classification at this stage does not appear to this Court to be proper. Learned Counsel for the petitioners has very fairly and rightly contended that notwithstanding the fact that they may receive such training of distance education, their continuance by renewal of their contract or any further fresh application for appointment will have to be considered in accordance with the changed criteria for appointment as Shiksha Mitra as obtaining on that date. 8. In the result, as far the petitioners in CWJC No. 8842/2004 are concerned, this Court would find that they would be eligible to be sent for training for distance education. Notwithstanding such training the same per se will not vest in them a right for renewal of their contractual appointment merely for reasons of the same. 8. In the result, as far the petitioners in CWJC No. 8842/2004 are concerned, this Court would find that they would be eligible to be sent for training for distance education. Notwithstanding such training the same per se will not vest in them a right for renewal of their contractual appointment merely for reasons of the same. They would necessarily have to fulfil the requirement for appointment as Shiksha Mitra as may be required by the respondents as on the date they apply for such appointment or their cases comes up for consideration. 9. Insofar as the petitioners in CWJC No. 10302/2004 are concerned, this Court would find that the petitioners 1 to 6 and 9 would undoubtedly be holding qualification of Intermediate. They would thus clearly be entitled to be seni for training for distance education even in accordance with the subsequent criteria laid down by the Government notwithstanding the fact that their initial appointment may have been made at a time when minimum qualification required was Matriculate. Insofar as petitioner no. 10 is concerned it is stated that he has given the Intermediate examination and his results are awaited. Be that as it may, the case of petitioner no. 10 would be similar to that of petitioners in CWJC No. 8842/2004. 10. In the result, these writ applications are allowed. The petitioners would be entitled to be considered for being sent for training in distance education. Notwithstanding the same this Court would record that there will be a difference between their claim for training and their eligibility for reappointment on the post of Shiksha Mitra. That would necessarily be governed by such criteria as may be laid down by the Government and existing at the relevant point of time. 11. The writ applications are allowed to the extent indicated above.