Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 1826 (JHR)

Poonam Rai v. State of Jharkhand

2017-10-31

S.N.PATHAK

body2017
ORDER : S.N. PATHAK, J. 1. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for quashing the letter dated 30.7.2012 (Annexure-3), whereby and whereunder, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad had cancelled the appointment of the petitioner to the post of Assistant Teacher for Sanskrit at +2 High School, Baliyapur, Dhanbad on the ground that B.Ed. degree of Session 1997-98 was not recognized by N.C.T.E., which was obtained from Sampurna Nand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. Factual Matrix: The petitioner was selected to the post of Assistant Teacher for Sanskrit in +2 High School, Baliyapur, Dhanbad vide Memo No. 1975 dated 20.7.2012, the name of the petitioner appeared at SI. No. 111 in the selection list but the joining of the petitioner was not accepted by the respondents. It is further stated that vide Memo No. 368 dated 30.7.2012, the District Superintendent of Education, Dhanbad intimated to the Director, Secondary Education-cum-Joint Secretary that the session of 1997-1998 in which the petitioner had obtained the B.Ed. degree was not approved by the NCTE and the B.Ed. sessions were approved from 31.7.2000 onwards by the NCTE, whereas the petitioner has obtained the B.Ed, degree in session 1996-97 and passed in B.Ed. in the year 1998 from Sumpuma Nand Sanskrit University, Varanasi. The issue regarding approval by the NCTE fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in Special Appeal No. 630 of 2005 in Ekta Shukla & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. and vide order dated 9.12.2015, the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court declared that the degrees for the academic years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and indeed for all academic year either in the faculty of education of the University or in any of the affiliated colleges in question is valid and the qualification granted by these bodies shall be treated to be valid. The said order was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court in S.L.P. No. 4163 of 2006, which was dismissed on 3.7.2006 and other of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 8.10.2012 for considering her case as the B.Ed. Degree of the petitioner has been declared as valid by the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which was duly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. Thereafter, the petitioner made an application before the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, Ranchi on 8.10.2012 for considering her case as the B.Ed. Degree of the petitioner has been declared as valid by the judgment of the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which was duly affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. 2. It is the specific case of the petitioner that though the order of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was in her favour, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court and issue has already been decided, the respondents-authorities without paying any heed to the said order, rejected the claim of the petitioner for appointment as Assistant Teacher for Sanskrit and hence, this writ petition has been preferred, challenging the order of rejection. 3. Mr. Jay Shankar Tripathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the issue involved in this writ petition has already been set at rest by the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is not open to the respondents to re-agitate the matter and rejection on this ground, is not tenable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and submits that in view of the orders passed by the Hon'ble Courts, the case of the petitioner ought to have been considered by the respondents and the joining of the petitioner should have been accepted, non-acceptance of joining is illegal, arbitrary and not in accordance with law. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mr. Prem Pujari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents very fairly submits that the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court, affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court is binding as the ratio of the such Court is applicable in the case of the petitioner as well. Learned counsel further submits that as the order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents ought to have been considered the case of the petitioner in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. However, learned counsel argues that the matter regarding objection raised by the respondents-authorities that the B.Ed. Learned counsel further submits that as the order has been affirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the respondents ought to have been considered the case of the petitioner in view of the ratio decided by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court. However, learned counsel argues that the matter regarding objection raised by the respondents-authorities that the B.Ed. Degree of Session 1997-98 was not recognized by NCTE is still open and in view of the Judgment, the matter has to be reexamined by the respondents-authorities and if, the case of the petitioner falls within ambit of the Judgment, the same shall be considered in accordance with law. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The issue regarding B.Ed. Degree approval by NCTE admittedly, fell for consideration before the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court and which was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court and as such, the issue is no more res integra. The objection raised by the respondents is not tenable in the eyes of law. It has been clearly decided by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court that the degree for the academic years 1996-97, 1997-98 and 1998-99 and indeed for all academic year either in the faculty of education of the University or in any of the affiliated colleges in question is valid and the qualification granted by these bodies shall be treated to be valid. It is one thing to say that the judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court is not binding in the territory of State of Jharkhand but it has been decided in catena of decisions that the ratio of the Court is always binding whether it is Jharkhand or any other State falling in the territorial jurisdiction of any High Court. Moreover, the Judgment of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court was affirmed by the Hon'ble Apex Court as the appeal preferred by the State of U.P. & Ors., was dismissed and as such, the act of the respondents-authorities in cancelling the appointment of the petitioner and not accepting the joining is against the provisions of law and it amounts to flouting the orders of the Hon'ble Apex Court. 6. 6. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncement, I hereby direct the respondent No. 4 to consider the case of the petitioner and to accept the joining of the petitioner to the said post and the B.Ed. Degree be treated as valid. The entire exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands allowed.