Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 451 (RAJ)

Satya Naraya Purohit v. State of Rajasthan

2014-02-11

VINEET KOTHARI

body2014
Judgment 1. Brief facts, of the case are that the petitioner having passed his B. Ed. examination from Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar, was appointed as Teacher Grade III by the respondent, District Establishment Committee of the Panchayati Raj Department in Zila Parishad, Nagaur vide the order Annex.1 dated 19.11.1988. Later on, the State Government vide the communication (Annex.2) dated 23.03.1989 informed the Director of the Elementary & Secondary Education, Bikaner that the B. Ed. degree of said Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar, is not a valid degree duly recognized by the State Government. On the apprehension of his termination on this ground, the petitioner approached this Court by way of filing writ petition being SBCWP No.1561/1989, which writ petition came to be disposed of by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 24.02.1998 in the following terms:- “This petition is being directed against the communication made by the Department of Education (Gr. III) Govt. of Rajasthan, Jaipur to the Director, Primary and Secondary Education, Bikaner, whereby it is informed to him that B. Ed. degree of Maithili University is recognised whereas B. Ed. degree of Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar is not recognised. Petitioner's apprehension is that his services shall be terminated on the basis of the fact that he is holding a degree of Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar. If such a action is being taken, which would naturally be after issuing notice to the petitioner, the petitioner may place material before the authority that the degree which he is holding is being recognised in the Rajasthan or by U.G.C. No directions or orders are required to be issued for quashing the more communication. The writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- P.P. Naolekar, J.” 2. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a show cause notice vide Annex.4 dated 25.09.1998 to establish and adduce the proof about the validity of the said B. Ed. degree obtained by him. It appears from the record that in the meanwhile, the present petitioner sought permission from the respondent-Department to do a fresh course of B. Ed. in the year 1992-93 vide his application (Annex.5) dated 20.01.1993 and thereafter vide the mark-sheet (Annex.6) dated 05.09.1997 the petitioner appears to have passed the B. Ed. examination in the month of June, 1997 from Kota Open University, Kota, Rajasthan. in the year 1992-93 vide his application (Annex.5) dated 20.01.1993 and thereafter vide the mark-sheet (Annex.6) dated 05.09.1997 the petitioner appears to have passed the B. Ed. examination in the month of June, 1997 from Kota Open University, Kota, Rajasthan. However, vide the impugned order (Annex.8) dated 03.10.1998, the services of the petitioner were terminated by the Development Officer, Panchayat Samiti Nagaur, with effect from 03.10.1998. 3. Assailing the said termination order, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition on 08.10.1998. A coordinate bench of this Court while issuing notices to the respondents stayed the effect and operation of the impugned order (Annex.8) dated 08.10.1998 vide the interim order dated 12.10.1998, which ad-interim order came to be confirmed by another coordinate bench of this Court on 07.11.2001 and thus under the interim order of this Court, the petitioner has continued so far in the services of the respondent-Department. 4. Mr. Mukesh Vyas, learned counsel for the petitioner has urged that the services of the petitioner could not be terminated as the issue relating to validity of the B. Ed. degree of Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar, possessed by the petitioner is pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. He referred an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Smt. Sumitra Devi Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (DBSAW No.287/2004, decided on 29.03.2012). The relevant and the operative portion of the order of the Division Bench is quoted herein below for ready reference: “At the outset learned counsel appearing for the parties stated that real controversy involved between the parties and which has a direct bearing over the controversy involved in these appeals is pending in Supreme Court in two special leave petitions being SLP (Civil) No.7795/2007 and SLP (Civil) 7259/2007 wherein questions involved in relation to the grant of B. Ed. Degree by the University named B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura to the students of Muslim Minority Ahmadia B. Ed. College, Katihar. It is brought to our notice that this controversy was finally decided by the Patna High Court in several letters patent appeal by a common order passed in LPA No.453/2001 on 5.1.2007 and it is against these orders now this controversy is taken to Supreme Court which as stated above is pending in aforementioned two SLPs. It is also stated that the matters are listed before the Supreme Court on 25.4.2012. It is also stated that the matters are listed before the Supreme Court on 25.4.2012. In a situation like the one, we are inclined to dispose of these appeals by giving following directions:- “(1) Depending upon the final out come of the two SLPs being S.L.P. No.7795/2007 and 7259/2007, the necessary consequential orders would be passed by the respondents-State of Rajasthan through the concerned authority dealing with these cases in relation to the case of each writ petition (appellant) of this appeal. (2) The consequential order shall be passed within three months from the date of decision of the Supreme Court and the same shall be communicated to each writ petition (appellant). (3) In the meantime and till disposal of the Supreme Court, the appellant shall continue to remain in service on the post held by them.” 5. He also submitted that in view of B. Ed. degree later on acquired by the petitioner from Kota Open University vide Annex.6 mark-sheet dated 05.09.1997, the services of the petitioner do not deserve to be terminated. 6. The respondent-Department has filed a reply to the writ petition and contesting the writ petition it has submitted that the petitioner failed to furnish any document or material in pursuance of this Court's order to prove that B. Ed. degree passed from the Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar, is a duly recognized and valid degree and, therefore, the termination order passed by the Development Officer was justified. The respondents have also contested the said B. Ed. degree allegedly passed by the petitioner from Kota Open University on the ground that the concerned authority, who gave the permission for pursuing such course to the petitioner, was not authorized to do so. The relevant para 6 of the reply filed by the respondents is quoted below for ready reference:- “(6). That the contents of this para are not admitted and it is submitted that the petitioner has never given any permission by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Nagour at any point of time. The relevant para 6 of the reply filed by the respondents is quoted below for ready reference:- “(6). That the contents of this para are not admitted and it is submitted that the petitioner has never given any permission by Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Nagour at any point of time. It is further submitted that on enquiring it is found that on 2.1.93 Shri P.C. Modi, who was working as Education Extension Officer at Panchayat Samiti Nagour went for inspection at Government Primary School Fagli, where the petitioner was working at that time and at that time, the petitioner has made an application before him and immediately the same was forwarded by the Headmaster and thereafter, Shri P.C. Modi has granted permission illegally to the petitioner for appearing in B. Ed. Examination of Kota Open University. In fact Shri P.C. Modi who was working as Educational Extension Officer was not at all authorised to give permission for appearing in any examination. It is further submitted that on 2.1.93, Shri Vijaypal Singh, R.A.S., was working as Vikas Adhikari, Panchayat Samiti Nagour and he was not camping at Fagli on 2.1.93 and was very much present in the office of Panchayat Samiti on 2.1.93. In such circumstances, there is no question of giving permission to the petitioner for appearing in B. Ed. Examination by the Vikas Adhikari on 2.1.1993. The Annexure-5 is nothing but fraud with the Panchayat Samiti and so called permission granted to the petitioner by Shri P.C. Modi was not consequence. The B. Ed. qualification acquired by the petitioner from Kota Open University is, therefore, can not be considered and the petitioner can not get benefit from Annexure-6. It is further submitted that National Council for Teachers Education ('NCTE') is not recognizing the B.Ed. Degree of Kota Open University and the matter is still under consideration under N.C.T.E. Therefore, the B.Ed. Degree from Kota Open University is also not recognised and the petitioner otherwise also not entitled to get any relief from Annexure-6. The copy of one of the General Notice issued by the Kota Open University of this effect dated 29.10.98 published in daily newspaper 'Rajasthan Patrika' on 1.11.1998 is submitted herewith and marked as Annexure-R/3. It is further submitted that the petitioner can not take benefit of Annexure-5 and 6 because the petitioner has not disclosed the fact regarding acquisition of B. Ed. It is further submitted that the petitioner can not take benefit of Annexure-5 and 6 because the petitioner has not disclosed the fact regarding acquisition of B. Ed. qualification from Kota Open University at the time of deciding the writ petition No.1561/89 and therefore, it is not open for the petitioner to claim any benefit on the basis of Annexure-5 and 6.” 7. The respondents have also stated in the above quoted reply that even the B. Ed. Degree of Kota Open University is not recognised so far. Mr. Manish Patel, learned Addl. Govt. Counsel urged that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed on the basis of contentions made in the reply to the writ petition. 8. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, this Court is of the opinion that as far as the validity of the B. Ed. degree allegedly passed by the petitioner from Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar, is concerned, the petitioner has miserably failed to establish the validity of the same and, therefore, the respondent, Development Officer, was justified in passing the impugned termination order on the basis of the communication of the State (Annex.2) dated 23.03.1989 that the said degree is not recognised by the State of Rajasthan. The issue pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.7795/07 as per the order of the Division Bench of this Court, quoted above, also pertains to a different university, viz. B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura, to which Muslim Minority Ahmadia B. Ed. College, Katihar, was affiliated and against the decision of the Division Bench of Patna High Court in LPA No.453/01, the matter is said to be pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The present status of the said SLP is also not placed before the Court by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 9. Therefore, in these circumstances, there is no material placed on record by the learned counsel for the petitioner either before this Court or before the respondents authorities, to satisfy that the said B.Ed. Degree from Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar is validly recognized by the State Government. The stand of the respondent State is clearly on the contrary vide the Annex.2 dated 23.03.1989. Furthermore, the validity of the B.Ed. Degree from Maithili Vishwavidhyapeeth Kendriya Vishwa Vidhyalaya, Darbanga, Bihar is validly recognized by the State Government. The stand of the respondent State is clearly on the contrary vide the Annex.2 dated 23.03.1989. Furthermore, the validity of the B.Ed. Degree obtained by the petitioner from Kota Open University, is also not accepted by the respondent-State vide their stand taken in para 6 of the reply, quoted above. The NCTE has also not recognised the said B. Ed. course. The Kota Open University also admits this at least till 1998. Thus there is no valid ground to assail the impugned termination order. The writ petition is, therefore, disposed of leaving it free for the respondent-authority viz. District Establishment Committee of the Zila Parishad, Nagaur to ascertain the current position of recognition of B. Ed. degree of Kota Open University, by allowing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and also obtaining necessary information from the State Government as to the current status about the validity of said B. Ed. Degree allegedly passed by the petitioner in 1997 from Kota Open University. The said exercise may be completed by the respondents within a period of three months from today and the fresh orders either reiterating the earlier termination order or otherwise, may be passed. 10. The writ petition is, accordingly, disposed of with the aforesaid direction without interfering with the impugned order (Annex.8) dated 03.10.1998, however, it is directed that till the said enquiry is completed about the validity of the B. Ed. Degree passed by the petitioner from Kota Open University and recognition thereof by the State, for the said purposes of his employment as Teacher Gr. III, the interim order granted by this Court, shall continue only for a period of three months from today. No costs. A copy of this order be sent to the concerned parties forthwith.