Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 414 (PAT)

Ajay Kumar S/o Rajendra v. State Of Bihar

2009-03-18

MRIDULA MISHRA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard the counsel for the petitioners and the State. 2. Petitioners had applied for their appointment as school teacher in primary school in pursuance to the advertisement published inviting applications against the vacancy to the post. The grievance is that their applications for being appointed as trained teacher was considered and their names appeared in the provisional panel prepared for appointment of teachers. They were waiting for counselling, an order, contained in letter no. 11/NI1-09/08- 2053, dated 13.12.2008, was issued by the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, whereby the list of such training institutions were published which are unrecognized institutions. In this list the college, namely, National Urdu Prathmik Shikchak Shichha Mahavidyalaya, Madhubani, has also been included and this is the institution from which the petitioners have obtained their teachers training degree in the sessions 1987- 1989, 1988-1990, 1989-1991 and 1990- 1992. On account of putting the institutions, from which petitioners have obtained their teachers training, in the category of unrecognized institution the petitioners were not called for counselling and their hopes for being appointed as panchayat teachers have been shattered. 3. Petitioners case is that after passing matriculation examination they took admission in the college in question for two years teachers training course. Petitioner No. 1 took admission in session 1989-1991, petitioner no. 2 took admission in session 1987-1989, petitioner no. 3 took admission in session 1990-1992 and petitioner no. 4 took admission in 1988-1990. Finally on completion of their two years course they appeared in the examination and also passed out. In the year 2008 they applied for their appointment as trained teachers, but, in view of the impugned letter they are not supposed to be appointed on the post. 4. It has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the petitioners that during the relevant sessions when petitioners have passed out their teachers training course there was proper recognition of the State Government to the institution. In support of this contention letter no. 1049, dated 6.9.1988, issued by the Joint Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Government of Bihar, has been annexed as Annexure-2. In this letter it is mentioned that the National Urdu Prathmik Shikchak Shichha Mahavidyalaya, Madhubani, is recognized for the session 1986-1988 till further orders. It has further been contended that subsequently no order was passed by the State Government regarding derecognition of the institution. In this letter it is mentioned that the National Urdu Prathmik Shikchak Shichha Mahavidyalaya, Madhubani, is recognized for the session 1986-1988 till further orders. It has further been contended that subsequently no order was passed by the State Government regarding derecognition of the institution. However, the National Council for Teachers Education Act came into force on 17.8.1995 and, thereafter, since the institution has not been recognized by the National Council for Teachers Education it will be deemed that institution has no recognition. Accordingly, it can be presumed that after coming into force of National Council for Teachers Education Act the institution has no recognition. So far petitioners are concerned, they are completely out of the purview of the impact of such derecognition after the coming into force of National Council for Teachers Education Act as they passed out much earlier to the appointed date, i.e., 17.8.1995. 5. Counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent no. 3. In paragraph 5 of the counter affidavit, it has been stated that the Eastern Regional Committee of National Council for Teachers Education, Bhuwaneshwar, vide letter no. 9651, dated 6.7.1999, had asked the Principal of the concerned training college to submit requisite documents, failing which the recognition to the institution will be refused. No such documents were produced and by letter no. 1032, dated 25.3.2004, the recognition has been refused to the institution. It has also been stated that in the year 1999 the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, and the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Darbhanga, had inspected the institution and it was found that no such institution is existing. Finding the institution non-existent there was no question to recognize it. Alongwith the counter affidavit, the recent order passed by the Director, Research and Training, Bihar, dated 26.2.2009, has been annexed as Annexure "D". This letter indicates that the Secretary, National Urdu Prathmik Shikchak Shichha Mahavidyalaya, Madhubani, had requested to recognize the concerned authority to such degrees of this institution for the purposes of teachers appointment in the second phase which were granted prior to 1995. Departmental letters annexed with the writ application showing recognition to the institution till further orders it is said that when the institution was found non-existent question of recognition do not arise. The enquiry is being conducted by Vigilance Department, in this regard. 6. Departmental letters annexed with the writ application showing recognition to the institution till further orders it is said that when the institution was found non-existent question of recognition do not arise. The enquiry is being conducted by Vigilance Department, in this regard. 6. This letter, in essence, admits that previously there was States recognition to this institution for the sessions 1984-1986, 1985-1987, 1986-1988, but, for sessions 1993 onwards there was no recognition. In this regard, several writ applications were filed and by the orders of the High Court passed in different writ applications as well as in LP.A. No. 428 of 2005* recognition to this institution for session 1993 onwards has been cancelled. 7. Considering the pleadings and the Annexures annexed with the writ application as well as counter affidavit, it is apparent that the sessions during which the petitioners had completed their teachers training course, there was recognition of the State Government, which is also admitted in the letter annexed as Annexure "D". So far recognition to this institution for the session 1993 onwards is concerned, it was cancelled under the orders of the High Court. For the present there is no recognition to this institution. 8. Now, the question which arise for consideration whether at the relevant time when the petitioners completed their teachers training course there was valid recognition to the institution. There is no dispute that the result of the petitioners was published by the Bihar School Examination Board, as State Government accorded recognition to the institution. At the relevant time, recognition of National Council for Teachers Education was also not required as the National Council for Teachers Education Act came into force with effect from 17.8.1995. In the given circumstance, the respondents should not have debarred the petitioners or similarly situated applicants, like petitioners, from participating in the counselling even if the institution was subsequently derecognized. Petitioners and similarly situated applicants should have been allowed to participate in the counselling and considering their merit be appointed on the post of teachers. This is made clear that the respondents will consider not only the case of the petitioners in the present writ application, but, all such applicants, who have passed from this institution prior to the sessions 1991-1993.There is no need to quash letter no. 11/NI1-09/08-2053, dated 13.12.2008, as it is relevant for the subsequent sessions, i.e., 1991-1993 onwards. 9. This is made clear that the respondents will consider not only the case of the petitioners in the present writ application, but, all such applicants, who have passed from this institution prior to the sessions 1991-1993.There is no need to quash letter no. 11/NI1-09/08-2053, dated 13.12.2008, as it is relevant for the subsequent sessions, i.e., 1991-1993 onwards. 9. With these observations and directions, this application is allowed.