Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 729 (JHR)

Sapan Kumar Dan v. State of Jharkhand

2013-06-21

SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR

body2013
JUDGMENT By Court: Petitioners have filed the present writ petition seeking the following reliefs: I. “For issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the order as contained in Memo No. GS (A150817047/99) and Memo No. GS (A700) V.C.O.615/2000, issued under the signature of the respondent no.7 whereby and whereunder the results of the successful candidates of the B.Ed. Examination has been cancelled. II. For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction for quashing the order dated 4.6.2005 issued under the signature of Dy. Commissioner, Dumka and D.S.E., Dumka whereby and whereunder the representation filed on behalf of the petitioners in pursuant to the direction of this Hon'ble Court dated 21.4.2005, passed in W.P. (S) No. 1783/05. III. For the issuance of an appropriate writ, order, direction commanding upon the respondents to forthwith issue appointment letters in favour of the petitioners for the post of Primary Teacher with effect from 06.01.2004 on the ground that all the petitioners have been declared successful by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, Ranchi.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that, an advertisement was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for filling up the vacant post of Primary Teachers. The petitioners appeared in the examination and they have been declared successful in the result which was published on 13.11.2003. However, the petitioners were denied appointment on the ground that the recognition of the institutes, from where the petitioners obtained B.Ed. degree, has been cancelled by the Chancellor by order dated 01.11.1999. The petitioners earlier also approached this court in W.P.(S) No.1783 of 2005 which was disposed of by this Court giving opportunity to the petitioners to submit representation before the authorities. Pursuant to the order passed by this Court, the petitioners submitted their representation which has been rejected by order dated 04.06.2005 and therefore, the petitioners have approached this Court. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondents, in which, a plea has been taken that B.Ed. degree which the petitioners possess is not a valid degree and in fact a criminal case was registered and thereafter, the Chancellor ordered for cancellation of degree awarded by the Institute. The petitioners were granted opportunity and a decision was taken by the authorities in the meeting of District Education Establishment Committee on 04.06.2005 and thereafter, the representation of the petitioners was rejected. 4. The petitioners were granted opportunity and a decision was taken by the authorities in the meeting of District Education Establishment Committee on 04.06.2005 and thereafter, the representation of the petitioners was rejected. 4. Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the documents on record. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners have obtained their B.Ed. degree in the year, 1997 itself whereas, the recognition of the institutes has been cancelled by the Chancellor by order dated 01.09.1999 and 19.05.2000 and therefore, the degree which has been awarded to the petitioners, prior to such cancellation of the recognition of the institutes, is a valid degree for seeking appointment. Moreover, the petitioners pursuant to the advertisement issued by the JPSC appeared in the examination and they all have been declared successful. He has further relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Patna High Court passed in a batch of petitions in which the students who obtained B.Ed. degree from Millia Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Teachers Training (B.Ed.) College, Rambagh, Purnea were held eligible for appointment and it has been held that merely because the recognition of the institute was cancelled after the degree has been awarded to the candidate, the candidate cannot be denied appointment on the post for which he/she has been declared successful. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondents has submitted that admittedly the recognition of the institutes from where the petitioners have obtained B.Ed. degree, has been cancelled and therefore, such cancellation of the recognition of the institutes would relate to the initial date on which the recognition was granted to the institutes. He has further submitted that the B.Ed. degree submitted by the petitioners have been found forged on the enquiry conducted by the controller of examination. 7. I have perused the documents on record. Perusal of the impugned order dated 01.11.1999 discloses that the only ground taken for denying the appointment of the petitioners is that the Chancellor has cancelled the recognition to those institutes by order dated 01.09.1999 and 19.05.2000. It has also been extracted in the impugned order that certain vigilance cases were registered against these institutes and the investigation was in progress. This issue has also been specifically dealt with and decided by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in favour of the candidates who were declared successful. It has also been extracted in the impugned order that certain vigilance cases were registered against these institutes and the investigation was in progress. This issue has also been specifically dealt with and decided by the Hon'ble Patna High Court in favour of the candidates who were declared successful. It appears that the matter has been placed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Several Special Leave Petitions have been filed including one S.L.P. (C) No. 9512/2007 and after an interim order passed in the Special Leave Petition, the respondents have given appointment to several other persons including one Sri Krishna Yadav. These facts have not been controverted by the counsel appearing for the respondents. 8. A perusal of the various documents on record would also disclose that the petitioners obtained B.Ed. degree and they have been declared successful in the examination conducted by the JPSC. Merely, because the Chancellor has chosen to withdraw/cancel the recognition granted to the institutes, would not deprive the petitioners of their right to get themselves appointed on the post for which they have been declared successful. 9. The public notice issued by National Council For Teacher Education has been brought on record as Annexure3 and in the column of the name of the institution, Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Millat Nagar, Rampara, Katihar finds mention as an institute which has been provisionally recognised upto 199899. It is also appearing from the advertisement issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission that the following educational qualification was required for appearing in the examination for appointment on the post of Primary Teacher: A. Citizen of India B. Matriculation or Equivalent Examination passed C. Two years' Educational Training or B.Ed./Dip.-in-Ed./Dip.-in-Teach or CPD 10. It further appears from the materials on record that the said college was recognised by the State Government and the permanent affiliation to the said institute was granted vide order dated 12.06.1997. From the impugned order dated 04.06.2005, it appears that the Chancellor of the University namely B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura decided to cancel the degree/certificates and marksheets issued by the University to the successful examinees of B.Ed. examination of 1993, 1996 and 1997 of RahmatEAlam B.Ed. From the impugned order dated 04.06.2005, it appears that the Chancellor of the University namely B.N. Mandal University, Laloo Nagar, Madhepura decided to cancel the degree/certificates and marksheets issued by the University to the successful examinees of B.Ed. examination of 1993, 1996 and 1997 of RahmatEAlam B.Ed. College, Kunjauri Alam Nagar, Madhepura because the college was not recognised by the government of Bihar either under N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 or Bihar Teacher's Training College Act, 1982 and as the college had acted in utter violations of regulations and conditions laid by N.C.T.E. Act, 1993 and the Bihar University Act. The petitioners have brought on record various orders passed by learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in which it has been held that, since the time when the students had passed the B.Ed. Examination, the institute was duly recognised and therefore, the recognition of the institute would not divest the student the rights which had accrued to them on account of passing the B.Ed. Examination from the said institute. Various documents have been brought on record establishing affiliation to both the institutes namely, RahmatEAlam B.Ed. College, Kunjauri Alam Nagar, Madhepura and Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Millat Nagar, Rampara, Katihar. Both the institutes were affiliated at the relevant time. It is also a matter of record that the Jharkhand Primary School Recruitment Rules, 2002 has been made effective with effect from 29.06.2002. It also appears that the students of RahmatEAlam B.Ed. College, Kunjauri Alam Nagar, Madhepura moved the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (Civil) (CC) No. 4455 of 2007 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed an interim order directing status quo in relation to the degree already obtained. Thereafter, the respondents issued appointment letter to one Krishna Yadav by office order dated 19.12.2008 and the said appointment has been made subject to the final outcome of the Special Leave Petition pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The petitioner No.3 has also made a similar prayer in the present writ proceeding for appointment on similar terms. The judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court dated 05.01.2007 has dealt with and allowed the case of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Millat Nagar, Rampara, Katihar. The said Judgment notices the following: “There is another very significant fact in regard to the Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College. The judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court dated 05.01.2007 has dealt with and allowed the case of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College, Millat Nagar, Rampara, Katihar. The said Judgment notices the following: “There is another very significant fact in regard to the Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed. College. It may be noted that the judgment under appeal was pronounced on 28.03.2001 by which all the writ petitions filed by people claiming to be the past students of the College were dismissed. Just about a fortnight before that, on 13.02.2001 the same Hon'ble Judge (S.N. Jha, J) disposed of a writ petition being CWJC No. 912 of 2001 (Shahnaj Parween & Others Vs. The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University & Others) with a direction to the University to hold the B.Ed Examination for the bonafide students of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B.Ed College, Rampura, Katihar for the Session 19992000. In that order the learned Judge noticed the institution of the Vigilance case against the promoters of the College but in that regard observed as follows:- It is not in dispute that the college in question is a recognised college affiliated with the B.N. Mandal University. In my opinion, merely on account of pendency of the investigation relating to the affairs of the college, so long the college is recognised and affiliated with the University, the students cannot be denied the right to appear at the examination at the end of the course. In the present case a general direction is sought calling upon the University to hold examination, there is no occasion for this Court to make any adjudication on the individual claims of the petitioners. In other words, if a particular student or students are found to be ineligible to appear at the examination, they may individually be denied the right to appear at the examination but holding of the examination as a whole cannot be withheld merely on the ground of pendency of the investigation. The Vigilance Department has no jurisdiction to determine as to whether the college satisfies the requisite criteria for recognition or not. It can only investigate if the affiliation or recognition granted by the concerned authorities smacks of any criminality. The Vigilance Department has no jurisdiction to determine as to whether the college satisfies the requisite criteria for recognition or not. It can only investigate if the affiliation or recognition granted by the concerned authorities smacks of any criminality. Undoubtedly, it must be observed depending upon the result of the investigation steps may be taken by the Government and the University to withdraw the recognition and the affiliation but so long as the college remains recognised and affiliated the University has no option but to hold the examination. This order also refers to some earlier orders of the Court by which the University was asked to take examination of the students of that College. Against the Single Judge decision in CWJC No. 912 of 2001 (Shahnaj Parween & Others Vs. The Vice Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University & Others), the University preferred LPA No. 628 of 2001. That LPA was heard along with two other cases and the order of the Single Judge, insofar as Ahmadia College is concerned, was confirmed vide judgment and order, dated 17.07.2003 reported in 2003 (4) PLJR 197 . The order of the Division Bench has attained finality. Thus, the position that emerges is that by virtue of the decision of the Court, the University was obliged to hold examination for the session 19992000 for the students of this college. But on the other hand, the degrees granted to the students in the past sessions from the same college stand cancelled by the impugned orders, confirmed by the judgment coming under appeal. Needless to say that it is a highly anomalous situation.” 11. In view of the aforesaid discussion and reasons, the present writ petition is allowed only to the extent that the respondent nos. 1 to 5 are directed to look into the matter and subject to the suitability of the petitioners, that is, the age limit for appointment and availability of vacancy, grant appointment to the petitioners, on the same terms and conditions on which the said Krishna Yadav has been appointed. It is made clear that if at present there is no vacancy, the petitioners would be adjusted against the future vacancy, subject to condition that they have not crossed the age limit. The Writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.