Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 644 (PAT)

Sarva Nand Manjhi v. State Of Bihar

2013-05-27

V.N.SINHA

body2013
ORAL ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and the counsel for the State, Sri Anjani Kumar, AAG-10, who prays for short adjournment to file counter affidavit, but such prayer is refused in view of the order dated 14.5.2013 passed in CWJC No. 9435 of 2013 directing CWJC No. 9435 of 2013 and other similar matters to be placed “For Orders” on 27.5.2013. In case the State was interested to file counter affidavit, the time granted under order dated 14.5.2013 should have been utilized for filing the same. As the State- respondents have not chosen to file counter affidavit within the time granted by this Court, I am not inclined to grant any further adjournment to file counter affidavit in these matters. Also heard learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board). 2. Petitioners are the applicant for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the Secondary/ Higher Secondary School(s) of the State Government. They submitted their application form in the light of the qualification required for the post as notified in the Information Bulletin issued by the Bihar School Examination Committee, Patna, Annexure-2 in CWJC No. 9435 of 2013, which provides for minimum qualification of Graduate and Post Graduate for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in Secondary/ Higher Secondary School with further stipulation that the applicant should obtain B.Ed. qualification of one year duration within five years. It further provides that those who have completed the Session or had appeared in the examination, may also apply for the post. 3. These writ petitions have been filed questioning the instructions of the Director, Secondary Education contained in letter No. 647 dated 18.4.2013, Annexure-1 to CWJC No. 9435 of 2013 whereunder instructions have been issued to only consider those applicants who have completed B.Ed. course upto Session 2010-11 or had appeared in the examination. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that aforesaid instructions to only consider those who have completed B.Ed. Session 2010-11 or had appeared in the examination is contrary to the qualification notified in the Information Bulletin, Annexure-2, which provides outer limit of five years to obtain the B.Ed. qualification. 5. 4. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that aforesaid instructions to only consider those who have completed B.Ed. Session 2010-11 or had appeared in the examination is contrary to the qualification notified in the Information Bulletin, Annexure-2, which provides outer limit of five years to obtain the B.Ed. qualification. 5. I see substance in the submission raised on behalf of the petitioners, as it is submitted on their behalf that on the date of application for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher, they had already appeared in the B.Ed. examination, which is within outer limit of five years as notified in the Information Bulletin, Annexure-2. 6. In view of the aforesaid submission, I have no option, but to quash the instruction dated 18.4.2013, Annexure-1, which is, accordingly, quashed so far it concerns the petitioners. 7. These writ petitions are, accordingly, allowed.