Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1459 (JHR)

Satyendra Kumar v. State of Jharkhand

2009-11-18

D.G.R.PATNAIK

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for a direction upon the respondents to pay him his arrearsof salary from March 2004 as well as his current salary and also to quash the impugned orders, vide letter No. 1025 dated 08.11.2004 passed by the District Education Officer (D.E.O.), Dumka, Jamtara and the letter No. 2365 dated 12.09.2005, passed by the Director (Secondary Education), Government of Jharkhand, by which a direction was issued to the concerned authorities to stop payment of salary to the petitioner and to terminate his services. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order dated 08.11.2004 (Annexure- 3),directing for terminating the services of the petitioner, appears to have been passed on the ground that the B.Ed certificate, produced by the petitioner was issued by an Institute which has not been recognized by N.C.T.E. and as therefore, such certificate being invalid, the B.Ed qualification claimed by the petitioner cannot be accepted. 4. Learned counsel explains that in response to the advertisement published in the local newspaper on20.11.1993 issued by the Managing Committee of the school namely St. Teresa Girls High School, Dumka, inviting applications for appointment of science teacher (trained), the petitioner had applied for the post, he was called for interview and was selected and upon such selection being made, he was given the appointment letter on 05.01.1994, calling upon him to join on the post accordingly. 5. The decision of the petitioner's appointment was approved by the Vidayalaya Seva Board, Bihar, Patna andsuch approval was communicated by its letter dated 16.01.1996 to the school. 6. The petitioner had passed his B.Ed examination from Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, Kanpur, which is claimed to be an Institute recognized as a training institute by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. In support of the his claim, the petitioner submitted his B.Ed. training certificate obtained from the aforesaid institute, to the school management along with his initial application for appointment. 7. After his appointment, the petitioner was paid his salary which continued up to February 2004. Thereafter, the petitioner's salary has not been paid at all, although his services are being continuously taken by the school authorities. 8. Referring to the impugned letter of the respondent- D.E.O., Dumka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy regarding the validity of the petitioner's B.Ed. Thereafter, the petitioner's salary has not been paid at all, although his services are being continuously taken by the school authorities. 8. Referring to the impugned letter of the respondent- D.E.O., Dumka, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the controversy regarding the validity of the petitioner's B.Ed. certificate is totally misconceived, in view of the fact that the provisions of N.C.T.E. Act, 1995 which came into effect from 01.07.1995, has been sought to be applied with retrospective date. The petitioner's appointment was already confirmed by the school with the approval of the Vidayalaya Seva Board, Bihar, Patna in January 1994 itself. Learned counsel argues that the Act, which came subsequently, could not possibly have been applied retrospectively to defeat the benefits of his appointment genuinely granted on the basis of a valid certificate issued by the institute which was duly recognized by the State Government of Uttar Government. 9. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the respondents as also by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6,namely, the School Management. 10. Learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 5 and 6 submits that the petitioner's appointment in the year January 1994 was made after observing of the relevant rules and procedures and the decision of the petitioner's appointment was also confirmed by way of approval by the Vidayalaya Seva Board, Bihar, Patna. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent-State would submit that besides the stand taken by the respondent-State that the petitioner did not obtain his B.Ed. training certificate from any Institute recognized by the N.C.T.E., there appears another fact namely that that the Institute from where the petitioner claims to have obtained his B.Ed. certificate was also a bogus Institute which was not recognized by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh at the relevant point of time. 12. Learned counsel for the petitioner counters the statement, by referring to Annexure- 10 to the I.A. No.3545 of 2007 and explains that Annexure- 10 is a copy of the Circular issued by the Higher Education Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh dated 06.09.2000 which declares that the Institute, namely, the Rashtriya Patrachar Sansthan, from where the petitioner has obtained his B.Ed. degree, was duly recognized by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. degree, was duly recognized by the State Government of Uttar Pradesh. The Circular was issued by way of clarification by the concerned department of the Government of Uttar Pradesh, in pursuance to the order of the Supreme Court in a case filed before it. 13. Learned counsel further submits that pursuant to subsequent amendment carried out in the year 2006 in the .N.C.T.E. Act, it has been declared that certificates obtained by the candidates, prior to the promulgation of the .N.C.T.E. Act, from any institute which may not have been recognized by the N.C.T.E., shall continue to be treated as valid. Learned counsel submits that under such circumstances, the certificate produced by the petitioner cannot be treated as invalid and his appointment cannot be terminated. 14. From the rival submissions and the facts as appearing in the case, the only ground on which the District Superintendent of Education, Dumka, and the Director, Secondary Education had directed the Management of the school to terminate the petitioner's appointment is that the petitioner's B.Ed. certificate is not valid. 15. This ground is apparently misconceived for the three reasons. Firstly, the petitioner's certificate was obtained from the institute much prior to the promulgation of the N.C.T.E. Act and the provisions of the N.C.T.E. Act cannot be applied retrospectively. Secondly, as demonstrated by the petitioner by reference to the Circular of the concerned department of the State Government of Uttar Pradesh (Annexure- 10) and which has also been acknowledged by the respondent Nos. 5 and 6, it appears that the Institute from where the petitioner had obtained his B.Ed. certificate, was duly recognized by the Government of Uttar Pradesh. Thirdly, even as per the amendment carried out by N.C.T.E. Act, such certificates certificate shall have to be treated as valid. 16. In the light of the above facts and circumstances, I find merit in this writ application. Accordingly, this application is allowed. The impugned orders, vide letter No. 1025 dated 08.11.2004 passed by the District Education Officer, Dumka and letter No. 2365 dated 12.09.2005 passed by Director (Secondary Education), Government of Jharkhand, are hereby quashed. 17. As it appears notwithstanding the impugned order of District Education Officer, Dumka, the respondent-School Management has been continuously taking services of the petitioner, though not paying him salary from March 2004 onwards till date. Learned counsel for the respondent-School Management acknowledges this fact. 18. 17. As it appears notwithstanding the impugned order of District Education Officer, Dumka, the respondent-School Management has been continuously taking services of the petitioner, though not paying him salary from March 2004 onwards till date. Learned counsel for the respondent-School Management acknowledges this fact. 18. In this view of the matter, the petitioner's claim for the payment of salary for the services rendered by him is a legitimate claim and cannot be denied to him. I direct therefore that the respondent-School Management shall forward a letter to the concerned department of the State Government, informing the amount of arrears which is payable to the petitioner, as also the amount of current salary, within one month from the date of this order and within two months from the date of receipt of the letter, the concerned authority of the respondent-State Government, shall release the required funds to the School Management to enable payment of the amounts due and payable to the petitioner. 19. With these observations, this writ application is disposed of. 20. Let a copy of this order be given to the learned counsel of the respondent.