Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 58 (PAT)

Meena Kumari v. State of Bihar

2014-01-13

SHIVAJI PANDEY

body2014
ORDER Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State as well as private respondent. 2. In the present writ petition the petitioner is challenging the order dated 12.8.2011 (Annexure-19) passed by the Member, District Teacher Employment Appellate Tribunal, Samastipur by which the appeal filed by her has been dismissed and further for quashing the letter no.32 dated 26.11.2007 (Annexure-2) issued by the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary by which she was terminated. 3. The petitioner in pursuance of an advertisement applied for the post of Panchayat Teacher in Bhagwatpur Panchayat in the District of Samastipur. After due process the petitioner was selected and vide letter no. 03 dated 16.1.2007 (Annexure-1) he was posted as Panchayat Teacher in Rajkiykrit Primary School Harilochanpur in Bhagwatpur Panchayat, Sarairanjan, Samastipur. Accordingly the petitioner joined the post on 16.1.2007 and was working smoothly. 4. All on a sudden vide letter no.32 dated 26.11.2007 the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary on the ground of having B.Ed qualification from unrecognized training institute, terminated the services of the petitioner and after that one Pratima Kumari, respondent no.12 was appointed in place of the petitioner. When the petitioner did not get a proper response from the authority concerned she filed C.W.J.C. No. 2758 of 2008 against the order of termination. While the matter was pending before this Court the District Superintendent of Education, Samastiput vide letter no. 1139 dated 8.4.2008 directed the respondent Block Development Officer, Sarairanjan to reinstate the petitioner as she had obtained the degree from the institute which was a recognized institute by the Bihar School Examination Board/ State of Bihar during the period 1983-85. 5. A similar letter was also written by the Block Development Officer vide letter no. 714 dated 10.4.2008 to Block Education Extension Officer, Sarairanjan to do needful and get the petitioner reinstated to her post whereupon the Block Education Extension Officer also vide letter no. 274 dated 19.4.2008 directed the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary to reinstate the services of the petitioner in the light of directions given by the respondents Block Development Officer and District Superintendent of Education. At the same time the Block Education Extension Officer also directed the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary to pay the salary vide his letter no. 274 dated 19.4.2008 directed the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary to reinstate the services of the petitioner in the light of directions given by the respondents Block Development Officer and District Superintendent of Education. At the same time the Block Education Extension Officer also directed the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary to pay the salary vide his letter no. 107 dated 22.7.2008 but all went in vain, payment was not made to the petitioner whereupon Block Education Officer again reminded the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary to pay her salary vide letter no. 495 dated 5.9.2008. 6. When the petitioner did not get justice she approached this Court for his salary vide C.W.J.C. No. 2758 of 2008 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 25.9.2008. The Block Education Officer vide letter no.34 dated 12.1.2009 again asked the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary to pay the salary of the petitioner because her selection of the petitioner was found to be valid by the higher authority. 7. Again when the petitioner did not get justice she approached to this Court vide C.W.J.C. No.17381 of 2009 and this Court has taken serious view of the matter and vide order dated 7.4.2010 directed the respondent to take disciplinary action against the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary, whereupon the Collector issued the show cause to the Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary in the matter of non-payment of salary to the petitioner vide letter no.36 dated 9.1.2010. At the same time the Collector has directed the Sub Divisional Officer to conduct an enquiry to the charges against Mukhiya of Gram Panchayat at Raj Bhagwatpur and submit enquiry report whereupon the Sub Divisional Officer submitted the report vide letter no.1430 dated 25.5.2011 and on that basis the Collector has directed the Block Development Officer to lodge a criminal case against the Mukhiya and start disciplinary proceeding against Panchayat Secretary vide letter no.1464 dated 16.7.2011. 8. In pursuance of the aforesaid direction the Block Development Officer lodged an FIR against Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary vide Sarairanjan P.S. Case No.88 of 2011. It also appears from the record that an appeal was filed vide Appeal No.312 of 2009 against her termination and the same was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2009 due to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. It also appears that a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.6711 of 2008 was filed by respondent no.12. It also appears from the record that an appeal was filed vide Appeal No.312 of 2009 against her termination and the same was disposed of vide order dated 25.11.2009 due to the pendency of the writ petition before this Court. It also appears that a writ petition vide C.W.J.C. No.6711 of 2008 was filed by respondent no.12. This Court disposed of the matter and asked the parties to approach the Appellate Tribunal whereupon the aforesaid appeal has been filed and the appellate court decided the case against the petitioner. 9. Primary issue that has been raised by the petitioner that the reason for her termination as having B.Ed. qualification from Sant Marry Mahila Primary Teachers Training College, Deoghar was not the recognized institute during her study i.e. for the session 1983-85 whereas the fact is, the said institution remained validly recognized by the State of Bihar as well as Bihar School Examination Board up-to middle of February, 1992 and vide letter no.68 dated 16.3.1992 the recognization of the institute was withdrawn instantly. He further submits that her period of study was in the session 1983-85, during that period it was a valid institution and degree obtained by her cannot be depicted as invalid. It has further been submitted that Selection Committee had rightly selected the petitioner to Panchayat Teacher and the reason that has been assigned by the Mukhiya of being invalid qualification is completely de horse to the law and liable to be set aside. In support of his contention he has relied on a judgment in the case of Suresh Prasad Pal vs. State of Haryana, reported in A.I.R. 1987 SC 2027. He further submits that other persons who have obtained the degree from that institution during that period have been working in different school of the same district and same has been mentioned at Sl.No.3 (Annexure-22) which is letter dated 30.7.2010 issued by the Block Education Officer, Vidyapatinagar. On that strength learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of appellate authority is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 10. On that strength learned counsel for the petitioner submits that order of appellate authority is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside. 10. Learned counsel for other side has vehemently opposed the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner and submitted that the degree obtained by the petitioner was not from the institute recognized by the State of Bihar which has been taken cognizance by the appellate authority in his order as has been mentioned that the reconstitution of the said institution was found derecognized in 1992 and as such his selection at the initial stage is not sustainable in the eye of law. The case was adjourned on different dates to produce document to show the institute was not recognized College during 1983-85, but failed. 11. It will also be relevant to note that the Bihar School Examination Board has filed the affidavit and in paragraph 7 of his affidavit it has been specifically stated that the institution was legally recognized institution and the recognization was withdrawn in the year 1992 and has also stated in the affidavit that degree obtained from that institution cannot be said to be invalid qualification. 12. The primary question only to decide is as to whether the petitioner has obtained the degree of B.Ed. was from a validly recognized institution during that period or not. 13. Having considered the rival contention of learned counsel for the parties it is apparent from record that the petitioner has obtained the degree from Sant Marry Mahila Primary Teaching Training College, Deoghar which was validly recognized institution by the State of Bihar as well as by the Bihar School Examination Board and the recognization of that institution was withdrawn by the State of Bihar vide letter no.68 dated 16.3.1992. It is not in dispute that the petitioner was a student of that institution in the session 1983-85 and during that period it was very much recognized institution. It is also very clear that National Council for Teacher Education Act has come into force in the year 1995 vide notification no. 620(E) dated 1.7.1995,the institute has been derecognized vide Memo No.68 dated 16.3.1992 issued by the Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna and as such it cannot be said that the degree obtained prior to 16.3.1992 can be depicted as invalid. 620(E) dated 1.7.1995,the institute has been derecognized vide Memo No.68 dated 16.3.1992 issued by the Human Resources Department, Bihar, Patna and as such it cannot be said that the degree obtained prior to 16.3.1992 can be depicted as invalid. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Suresh Pal has held that degree obtained by the institute earlier to de-recognization cannot be held to be invalid. 14. In this view of the matter, the order of appellate authority dated 12.8.2011 (Annexure-19) as well as letter dated 26.11.2007 are set aside and the respondents authorities are directed to consider the case of the petitioner and pass order in accordance with law. It goes without saying that it is Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary who are responsible for keeping the petitioner away from her salary. If any salary is to be paid to the petitioner that would be realised from the pocket of Mukhiya and Panchayat Secretary. 15. With the aforesaid observation and direction this writ petition is allowed.