Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 693 (JHR)

Suman Kumar Sinha v. State of Jharkhand

2014-07-04

APARESH KUMAR SINGH

body2014
Order By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The writ petitioners in both these cases were appointed as Primary Teachers pursuant to a selection exercise conducted by the Respondent, Government of Jharkhand in the year 2002. Both these petitioners were appointed by the same appointment letter dated 2nd July, 2004 under which about 50 persons were appointed, Annexure4 contained in both the writ petitions. 3. The other undisputed fact about these two petitioners is that they had obtained Teachers' Training Qualification from one S. Wakil Ahmed Teachers Training College, Darbhanga, having undertaken the exam in the year 1998, for which results were also published in November, 1998. The appointment letter of these petitioners contain stipulation at para 1 of the said office order dated 2nd July, 2004 that their appointments were purely temporary. Para 3 of the said order indicates that the appointments are being made on the basis of the affidavits submitted by the respective candidates without verification at the relevant point of time. Paras 3 and 4 together categorically stated that if the relevant certificates of the candidates including Teachers' Training Qualification which were obtained from the recognized Institution were found to be forged, their appointment could be terminated at any point of time. The petitioners' appointment was terminated by the impugned order dated 1st July, 2005 bearing Memo No. 2213 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Hazaribgh, Annexure-9 in respect of the petitioner, namely, Kumari Swapna (W.P.(S) No. 4176 of 2005) and vide letter dated 20th May, 2005 issued by the same authority, Annexure6 in respect of petitioner, namely, Suman Kumar Sinha (W.P.(S) No. 3180 of 2005). The impugned order of termination of these two petitioners indicated that during verification of their certificates of Teachers' Training obtained from the said S. Wakil Ahmed Teachers Training College, Darbhanga, it was found that they were canceled by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga through letter dated 29th February, 2000. The impugned order of termination therefore indicated that since the appointments were made on the basis of certificates which were already canceled in respect of said College by the University in question, their appointment were liable to be terminated and were accordingly terminated. 4. The impugned order of termination therefore indicated that since the appointments were made on the basis of certificates which were already canceled in respect of said College by the University in question, their appointment were liable to be terminated and were accordingly terminated. 4. The petitioner in one of the writ petition being W.P.(S) No. 4176 of 2005 had also challenged the order dated 29th February, 2000, Annexure12 whereby the admission, examination, result and markssheet issued and provisional certificates of the said college along with other colleges were canceled. Though such a prayer was made belatedly by the writ petitioner in W.P.(S) No. 3180 of 2005, but the same was not allowed to be challenged in the Interlocutory Application being I.A. No. 199 of 2008 preferred by the said petitioner, which was rejected on 6th November, 2012. However, both the cases were tagged together and thereafter have been heard on merits. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the letter dated 16th February, 2004, Annexure3 in W.P.(S) No. 3180 of 2005, did not refer of the said college or University in respect of which the certificates were to be verified before granting appointment by the concerned authority to persons who had succeeded in the recruitment test held in the year 2002. It has been submitted that at the time of their appointment they had made no misrepresentation. However, learned counsel for the petitioners have generally argued relying upon the judgment rendered by the Patna High Court in the case of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Teachers' Vs. The State of Bihar and others decided on 28th March, 2008 by learned Single Bench of the Patna High Court. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners by referring to the said judgment have submitted that cancellation of certificates, exams, results and markssheet and the provisional certificates granted by the University of the said college were quashed by the learned Single Judge. Reference has been made to the reasonings given in the said judgment. He has also argued that the said Institution was granted affiliation by the University for the Sessions 1986-87 to 1996-97. Therefore, the cancellation of the certificates issued on the basis of exam held in the year 1998 by the University in a retrospective manner was not proper in the eye of law. He has also argued that the said Institution was granted affiliation by the University for the Sessions 1986-87 to 1996-97. Therefore, the cancellation of the certificates issued on the basis of exam held in the year 1998 by the University in a retrospective manner was not proper in the eye of law. The said cancellation having been set aside by learned Single Judge, the certificates issued by the said College in favour of the petitioners for Teachers' Training would revive and should be treated to be proper. The reference has been made to another judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Sanjay Kumar Singh and others Vs. The State of Bihar and others reported in 2005(1) BLJ 534. Perusal of the said judgment indicates that the said petitioner had approached the Patna High Court aggrieved by the decision of stoppage of his salary on account of the fact that he had passed B.Ed Examination from Milia Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad B.Ed. Teachers Training College, Rambagh, Purnea. The learned Single Bench in the said case quashed the order directing for stoppage of salary and rescinding the grant of Matric trained Scale of the said petitioner inter alia on the grounds that the said decision was taken as the B.Ed examination has been derecognized with retrospective effect, which cannot be allowed to stand. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent-State has relied upon the order of appointment as referred to hereinabove and the terms and conditions contained therein at paras 1, 3 and 4, as per which the appointments were purely temporary and on verification of the said certificates if it were found to be forged, their appointment would be cancelled without issuance of any show cause. Learned counsel submitted that on that very basis the foundation for their appointments stand demolished because of the cancellation of the certificates, exams and results by the University through order dated 29th February, 2000. Therefore, no sanctity to such appointment could have been attached. Therefore, the appointment of these petitioners were cancelled. Show cause was issued against the petitioner, which is Annexure6 to one of the writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 4176 of 2005. 8. Therefore, no sanctity to such appointment could have been attached. Therefore, the appointment of these petitioners were cancelled. Show cause was issued against the petitioner, which is Annexure6 to one of the writ petitions being W.P.(S) No. 4176 of 2005. 8. Learned counsel for the Respondent University and the State however both have relied upon a judgment rendered by learned Single Bench of the Patna High Court in CWJC No. 5430 of 1999 and several other analogous cases decided on 28th March, 2001. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the cancellation of certificates, exams, results and markssheet of the said college along with few other colleges were squarely under consideration before the learned Single Bench of the Patna High Court and after consideration of all relevant aspect of the matter including the provisions of NCTE Act, the earlier affiliation granted by the University to the petitioners' college as also the investigation done by the Cabinet (Vigilance) Department in respect of authenticity of the courses and period of study in the said colleges, the Hon'ble Court refused to interfere in the order of cancellation and dismissed the writ petition. Learned counsel for the University has also pointed out that the said judgment was taken in appeal by the aggrieved person and the Letters Patent Appeals being L.P.A. No. 453 of 2001 and other analogous appeals also in respect of the candidates relating to the same College was also dismissed by the common judgment dated 5th January, 2007. It is submitted that however Special Leave to Appeal against the said judgment passed by the Patna High Court perhaps is pending before Hon'ble Supreme Court. It has however been clarified that the said S.L.P. is in relation to another college. Therefore, the petitioners do not deserve any relief on account of the aforesaid facts that their certificates stand cancelled by the Respondents University which have been upheld by the said judgment of the Patna High Court. 9. I have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and gone through the relevant materials on record. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners though claiming to be belonging to different sessions in the S. Wakil Ahmed Teachers Training College, Darbhanga i.e. Sessions 199394 and 199596 had appeared in B.Ed Exam conducted by the University in the year 1998. It is not in dispute that both the petitioners though claiming to be belonging to different sessions in the S. Wakil Ahmed Teachers Training College, Darbhanga i.e. Sessions 199394 and 199596 had appeared in B.Ed Exam conducted by the University in the year 1998. The impugned order of cancellation dated 29th February, 2000 was issued by the Respondent Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. A perusal of same would indicate that results, exams and certificates of the said college including few other Teachers' Training College for the said period were cancelled. Reasons have been indicated in the order of cancellation inter alia that the enrollment of the candidates, the requirement of regular teaching, the teaching faculty and infrastructure were found to be absent in the said college which was in violation of the provisions of the Universities Act, 1976 as also NCTE Act, 1995. However, the said order of cancellation issued was challenged in CWJC No. 5430 of 1999 and analogous cases before Patna High Court. Perusal of the judgment dated 28th March, 2001 by learned Single Bench of the Patna High Court, in the said batch of cases more specifically in paras 5, 9, 14, 17, 21, 22 and 23 indicate that the case of the instant college, S. Wakil Ahmed Teachers Training College, Darbhanga and also the persons who had obtained teachers training qualification from the same college were elaborately considered by the Court. It further appears that the questions relating to grant of affiliation to the said College by the University were also taken into account. The provisions of NCTE Act were also considered by the learned Single Bench in the said batch of cases. At para 22 of the said judgment, it was held that none of these colleges had obtained permission to establish under the State Act, 1982 which was the mandatory requirement. At para 23, it was further noted that there is no explanation as to how the applications were invited for 10 or 12 academic sessions at a time, for example, in the cases of National Teachers Training College or S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga. At para 23, it was further noted that there is no explanation as to how the applications were invited for 10 or 12 academic sessions at a time, for example, in the cases of National Teachers Training College or S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga. Learned Single Judge considered the plea of the said petitioners and also taking into account the materials collected by the investigation Bureau leading to institution of criminal cases held that it was not possible to believe that the said petitioner had taken admission, prosecuted and furnished their courses when the N.C.T.E. came into force and therefore the provisions of the said Act would not apply to them. The genuineness of the petitioner as students of the concerned colleges were held to be suspect and accordingly learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court found it difficult to grant any relief to them for protecting their employment which they claimed to have got on the basis of degree obtained by them pursuant to the impugned examination. The writ petitions were accordingly dismissed. It is also evident from the judgment produced by the learned counsel for the Respondent University that the Letters Patent Appeal preferred by the aggrieved persons also in respect of S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga before Patna High Court was dismissed by judgment dated 5th January, 2007. The case of the instant college has been considered at page no. 13 to 17 of the said judgment. Learned Division Bench of the Patna High Court after considering all the relevant pleas raised by the petitioner found that in the absence of any material showing grant of recognition by the Government after the relevant date the provisional affiliation granted by the University to the college seems to be apparently collusive and fraudulent. It is therefore evident that the question relating to the legality of the impugned notification of the Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga dated 29th February, 2000 were squarely agitated by the affected parties and were decided against them by the said judgment as aforesaid (supra). 10. On the other hand, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered by the Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Teachers' Vs. 10. On the other hand, the petitioners have relied upon the judgment rendered by the Single Judge of Patna High Court in the case of Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad Teachers' Vs. The State of Bihar and others (Supra), to submit that cancellation of such certificates, exams results and markssheet were held to be bad and it was held that they could not apply retrospectively. However, the judgment that has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioner does not appear to be certified copy or xerox copy of the said judgment and neither is a reported judgment. Even perusal of the said judgment indicates that there is no reference of any particular college like the present institution, S. Wakil Ahmad Teachers Training College, Darbhanga. In the earlier judgment relied by the respondents the orders passed on 29th February, 2000 by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga were under challenge in the said writ petitions. At para 16 of the judgment relied by petitioners, a distinction has been made in relation to institution which had obtained orders for affiliation by fraud and interpolation and their retrospective cancellation of affiliation and recognization with those colleges which had fulfilled the requirement of infrastructure etc. However, it appears that the earlier judgment rendered by learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court on 20th March, 2001 relied upon by the respondents were not brought to the notice of the learned court when the said judgment was delivered, neither was the Division Bench judgment rendered by Patna High Court brought to the notice of the learned Single Judge. Therefore, the issue raised on behalf of the petitioner so far as cancellation of their degrees under the impugned notification of 29th February, 2000 is concerned, the same is no longer open to challenge after the challenge to the same have been negated by the judgment as referred to hereinabove in C.W.J.C. No. 5430 of 1999 and analogous cases dated 28th March, 2001 and upheld in L.P.A. No. 453 of 2001 and analogous cases dated 5th January, 2007 by Patna High Court. Since the petitioners had obtained appointment on the strength of the aforesaid certificates and in their appointment letter specific conditions were prescribed that upon verification if the certificates are found to be forged or the teachers training college are found not to have been recognized, the same could be cancelled, no sanctity could be attached to the provisional appointment given to the petitioner under the appointments letters dated 2nd July, 2004. 11. In the wake of the aforesaid facts and the reasons discussed hereinabove, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of termination of these petitioners and no interference is warranted in the notification dated 29th February, 2000, issued by Lalit Narayan Mithila University, Darbhanga. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed.