Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 1194 (JHR)

Deyanat Hussain v. State of Jharkhand

2008-10-20

R.R.PRASAD

body2008
JUDGMENT : This writ application has been filed for a direction to the authorities to consider the case of the petitioners, all trained teachers waiting for their appointments for more than a decade on the post of teachers in the primary school in the light of the decision rendered in a case of Nand Kishore Ojha vrs. The State of Bihar and others (C.W.J.C No.13246 of 2003). The case of the petitioner is that prior to 1988, all the appointments on the post of teacher in the State of Bihar were being made on the basis of a panel prepared district wise of all the trained techers but the Government of Bihar in the year 1991 gave good-bye to the existing rule by issuing notification dated 5.3.1991 wherein eligibility of training for appointment to the post of teachers was dispensed with and accordingly, invited applications even from untrained teachers for the appointments on the post of teachers in primary schools. Some of the person possessing teaching qualification, being aggrieved with that decision, filed a writ application before the Patna High Court assailing process of selection of the Bihar Public Service Commission on the ground that the decision of district wise selection is not fair and the Court having accepted the submission held that the eligible candidates have a right of consideration for the appointment in any one or other district cadre of Assistant Teachers and the State could not force a person to confine his application for a particular cadre. But the Patna High Court did not set aside the process of selection. Subsequently the appointments were made on that basis. However, the said decision was challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(Civil) No.23187 of 1996 wherein it was placed that out of 25,000 posts advertised for the appointments of teachers in primary school, 19,272 persons have already been appointed as Assistant Teacher in various schools and out of them, number of trained teachers were 1991 whereas 6000 posts remained vacant. The Court having considered the pros and cons of the case, disposed of Special Leave Petition with certain directions, some of them which is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case is being quoted hereinbelow: (i ) That commission shall conduct a special selection for the purpose of appointment on these unskilled posts from amongst applicants who have submitted the applications. (ii) The selection shall be confined to applicants possessing teachers training qualifications obtained from Government/Private Teachers Training Institutions. In spite of such direction, when nothing was done by the State of Bihar, the matter was again agitated in a writ application, bearing C.W.J.C.No.13246 of 2003 (Nand Kishore Ojha vrs. The State of Bihar and others) when the matter was taken for hearing the State of Bihar was subjected to severe criticism on account of non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in S.L.P No.23187 of 1996. However, the writ application was disposed of with a direction to the respondent to follow the judgment and direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vijay Kumar and others vs. The State of Bihar and others in S.L.P (Civil) No.23187 of 1996 by considering the case of trained teachers for recruitment by selection or otherwise. The State Government being aggrieved with that decision, filed a petition for Special Leave before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but subsequently that was withdrawn. Further case is that in spite of direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the Patna High Court, when the State of Bihar did not act as per the direction given by the Court, a contempt petition, bearing Contempt Petition No.287 of 2006 was filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein an affidavit was filed on behalf of the State of Bihar stating therein that priority has been given to the trained teachers in the matter of appointment and only if trained teachers are not available to sufficient numbers, the case of untrained teachers would be considered keeping in view the said assertion, the contempt petition was disposed of. Under these circumstances, submission was made on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners, who have received training from different Government Training Colleges more than a decade ago be directed to be appointed on the post of teachers in primary school, pursuant to direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the Patna High Court. Under these circumstances, submission was made on behalf of the petitioners that the petitioners, who have received training from different Government Training Colleges more than a decade ago be directed to be appointed on the post of teachers in primary school, pursuant to direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and also by the Patna High Court. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it does appear that when the matter relating to appointment of trained teachers in primary school came up before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No.23187 of 1996, direction was given to the Commission ( Bihar Public Service Commission) to conduct special selection process for the purpose of appointment of unfilled posts from amongst the applicants who have submitted the applications and have received training from Government/ Primary Teachers Training Institute. Subsequently, Patna High Court in the case of Nand Kishore Ojha vs. The State of Bihar and others (supra) directed the State of Bihar to follow the judgment and direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, whatever direction was given either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by the Patna High Court, that was against the State of Bihar and not to the State of Jharkhand and that too said direction was given much after bifurcation of the State and as such, any direction given by the Patna High Court to the State of Bihar, that is not binding upon the State of Jharkhand. Moreover, it appears from the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand that after the State of Jharkhand came into being, a new rule named as “Jharkhand Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules 2002” was framed for the purpose of appointment of teachers in elementary schools wherein eligibility was fixed for appointment of the Assistant Teacher in Elementary School as Intermediate or the equivalent examination with two years teacher’s training or equivalent training/ B.EL.Ed (Graduate in elementary education) / B.Ed. CP. Ed of two years (for physical teachers). Thereupon, Jharkhand Public Service Commission in terms of provision of the appointment rules issued advertisement in the newspaper in August, 2002 whereby inviting applications from the eligible candidates were invited for appointment on the post of teachers in Elementary School and at that time, relaxation of age of five years was granted. CP. Ed of two years (for physical teachers). Thereupon, Jharkhand Public Service Commission in terms of provision of the appointment rules issued advertisement in the newspaper in August, 2002 whereby inviting applications from the eligible candidates were invited for appointment on the post of teachers in Elementary School and at that time, relaxation of age of five years was granted. Subsequently, process of appointment was completed and now fresh advertisement has been made for appointment on the post of teachers in Elementary School from the eligible candidates. Under this situation, the petitioners are not entitled to get any relief and, hence, this application is dismissed.