Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 630 (PAT)

Anmol Kumar v. State Of Bihar

2009-04-16

NAVIN SINHA

body2009
JUDGEMENT 1. Heard leaned Counsel for the petitioners and the learned Counsel for the State. 2. The petitioners claim to have obtained the qualification of Baby Teachers Certificate Training Course, a two years course, conducted by the Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag (U.P). The petitioners completed the course and appeared at the final examination in 1994 and their results have also been published in 1994 itself. They are aggrieved by non-consideration of their cases for appointment on the post of Block Teacher. 3. Learned Counsel for the State relies upon Rule 8(3) of the Appointment Rules framed in 2006 as amended in 2008. It is submitted that the petitioners do not hold the qualifications for appointment during the second phase as the qualifications possessed by them is not from an institution recognised by the NCTE or recognised by the State Government. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioners submits that this Court in CWJC No. 1387 of 2007 and analogous cases disposed on 21.5.2007 set aside the orders of termination of those appointed in the first phase and who had their qualifications from the Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, as the petitioners, during a period prior to coming into force of the NCTE Act. 5. The issue of eligibility for appointment and issues of equivalence for the purpose of appointment are for the employer to decide but not for the Courts. However, the employer cannot be permitted to resort to an arbitrary interpretation of its own rule or to deny equivalence on unreasoned grounds. 6. The amended Rules of 2008 with regard to the second phase itself stipulates that such persons can also be considered for appointment who have obtained their qualifications of Matric or equivalent from a Government recognised school and who possess their teachers training qualification prior to coming into force of NCTE Act from a recognised institution having undergone two years training course. 7. The petitioners have completed two years training course as urged on their behalf. They have completed the course in 1994, prior to coming into force of the NCTE Act on 17.8.1995. The respondents in their own letter dated 22.1.2009 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education have noticed a letter of the Government of India dated 18.12.1984 that Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag was recognised for employment to the post and services under the Central Government. 8. The respondents in their own letter dated 22.1.2009 issued by the Regional Deputy Director of Education have noticed a letter of the Government of India dated 18.12.1984 that Gandhi Hindi Vidyapith, Prayag was recognised for employment to the post and services under the Central Government. 8. This Court is therefore satisfied that the petitioners have been able to make out a prima facie case to be considered for appointment. 9. This writ application is therefore disposed with the observation that if the respondents do not wish to consider persons with qualification like the petitioners in the second phase of the appointment, they shall be required to pass a reasoned and speaking order dealing with the issues of the qualification of the petitioners of two years training course from an institution prior to coming into force of the NCTE Act, whose qualifications are recognised by the Government of India for appointment to post and services under the Central Government. If the respondents propose to deny such consideration to the petitioners, they shall be obliged to inform the reasons why such appointment is to be denied and provide opportunity to the petitioner to meet the same and thereafter the respondents may pass a reasoned and speaking order. 10. This Court does not fix any time for disposal of the matter by the respondents. When the Court does not specify the time, the order is required to be complied with forth with. The urgency is for the respondents to appreciate. The Court only clarifies that any delay on the part of the respondents in disposal of the representation shall not enure to the benefits of the respondents that appointment had been made in the meantime of others. If the petitioners are compelled to approach this Court again and this Court finds substance in their renewed plea in the fresh writ application, in that event any appointment made in the meantime shall be of no consideration in grant of appropriate relief to the petitioner should the occasion so arise.