[ad_1]
Patna High Court
Mahesh Kumar Pandit vs The State Of Bihar on 24 April, 2025
Author: Purnendu Singh
Bench: Purnendu Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.18445 of 2021
======================================================
Mahesh Kumar Pandit S/o Sheo Shankar Pandit, Resident of Village-
Mohiuddinagar, P.S.- Mohiuddinagar, District - Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar .
2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar,
Patna.
3. The Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer -cum-Secretary, Zila Parishad, Madhyamik
Shikshak Niyojan, Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Rakesh Ranjan, Advocate
Mr.Binit Kumar, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Mr.Madhaw Prasad Yadaw ( Gp23 )
Ms. Meera Singh, AC to GP 23
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE PURNENDU SINGH
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 24-04-2025
Heard Mr. Rakesh Ranjan along with Mr. Binit
Kumar, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioner
and Mr. Madhaw Prasad Yadaw, learned GP 23 along with Ms.
Meera Singh, learned counsel for the State.
2. Petitioner has inter alia prayed for following
reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:-
"That this is an application on behalf of
the above named petitioner to issue an appropriate
writ(s), order(s), or direction(s) particularly in nature
of certiorari to set aside the order dated 16.03.2020
contained in memo no.1809 passed by the Director,
Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna,
whereby and under the authority concerned pleased to
reject the petition of the petitioner to reinstate him in
the service as the Assistant Teacher in the Secondary
School under the District Board in the District
Patna High Court CWJC No.18445 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
2/8
Samastipur, thus thereafter direct the Respondent
authorities to pay the petitioner all the consequential
benefits as he would be entitled to when he could not
have been illegally and arbitrarily removed from the
service and/or grant any other equitable relief(s)
befitting in the facts and circumstances of the case."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner submitted that the petitioner obtained Shiksha
Visharad degree, which is equivalent to Intermediate degree,
from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad and he was given
provisional certificate by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Allahabad. Based on the said certificate, the petitioner was
appointed by the Executive officer of District Board as a
Secondary Teacher and he, accordingly, joined on 06.12.2006.
However, the District Education Officer, Samastipur -cum
-Secretary District Board, Secondary Teachers Employment
Samastipur terminated the service of the petitioner vide order
dated 14.06.2008 on the ground that the degree of Visharad
obtained by the petitioner from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan,
Allahabad is not equivalent to B.A. and B.Ed degree.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal before the District
Teachers Appellate Authority, Samastipur vide Appeal No.01 of
2015 and the same was disposed of vide order dated 18.01.2016.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed appeal against the order dated
18.01.2016
before the State Teachers Appellate Authority, Bihar
Patna High Court CWJC No.18445 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
3/8
bearing Appeal No.95 of 2018 which was disposed of vide order
dated 21.06.2019 with following operative observation:
“x x x x x x Having regard to the peculiar facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court while
disposing of the appeal permits the appellant to file
a detailed representation before the Respondent –
Director, Secondary Education, whereafter the
Respondent- Director shall take an appropriate
decision in respect of the employment or continuity
in the employment of the appellant in accordance
with law but after affording an opportunity of
hearing to the appellant. The Court expects that
consideration of the matter is concluded by the
said respondent within eight weeks of the filing of
the representation along with a copy of the present
order.”
4. The petitioner moved before the Director,
Secondary Education and Director though observed that as per
provision of Rule 4(ka)(iii) of the Bihar Zila Parishad
Secondary Teachers and Higher Secondary Teachers
(Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 at the time
of appointment, there was no requirement of technical degree
like DELED or B.Ed, however, he has not interfered with the
termination order contained in Memo No.182 dated 14.06.2008
on the ground that provisional certificate issued by the Hindi
Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad is not recognized by the
Education Department, Government of Bihar.
5. The petitioner further submitted that the case of
the petitioner is covered by order dated 11.07.2019 passed in
CWJC No.16939 of 2018. In the said writ petition, the
Patna High Court CWJC No.18445 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
4/8
grievance of the petitioner was non-payment of salary, despite
he was continuing as a teacher on the pretext that degree
obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag Allahabad is
invalid. This Court allowed the said writ petition on the ground
that the degree has been made invalid from 25.08.2008 after the
petitioner of the said writ petition was appointed in the year
2006. On the basis of the degree having been invalidated with
retrospective effect, i.e. prior to 25.08.2008, the same according
to the petitioner, cannot be a ground for his termination and that
too without affording the petitioner opportunity to send him
along with the other teachers, who had also not undergone
training and were not having DELED or B.Ed degree at the
time of their admission.
6. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of
respondent no.4, the District Programme Officer, Secondary
Education, Samastipur. It has been stated that Hindi Sahitya
Sammellan, Allahabad was not authorized to conduct
examination vide departmental order contained in Memo
No.1498 dated 20.11.2008. It has been stated in paragraph
no.12 of the counter affidavit that “the Court based on the
aforesaid discussion finds it difficult to issue any mandamus to
the State Government compelling it to recognize the degree of
Patna High Court CWJC No.18445 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
5/8
Shiksha Visharad as equivalent to B.ed and consequently issued
directions for considering the candidature of the petitioners”. In
view of that, the Director has shown his inability to consider the
case of the petitioner and did not revoke his termination order in
light of departmental order dated 16.03.2020, which has been
brought on record by way of Annexure A to the counter
affidavit, and uphold the termination order of the petitioner.
Learned counsel further submitted that on the degree of
Visharad, which is equivalent to Intermediate, granted by Hindi
Sahitya Sammellan, Prayag, Allahabad, a person cannot be
appointed as Secondary Higher Secondary Teacher under
schools of District Board.
7. Heard the parties.
8. Before I proceed to discuss on merit, I find it apt
to reproduce Rule 4(ka)(iii) of Rules 2006 which is as under:
“jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~ vf/kfu;e ykxw gksus
ds iwoZ ekU;rk izkIr izf”k{k.k laLFkk ls ch0,M0 vFkok vf/kfu;e
ykxw gksus ds ckn jk’Vªh; v/;kid f”k{kk ifj’kn~ }kjk ekU;rk izkIr
izf”k{k.k laLFkk ch0,M0 dh fMxzhA”
9. It has been admitted by the State that at the time of
appointment pursuant to Rules, 2006 there was no requirement
of having certificate like DELED which is required for
teacher’s appointment to teach Classes I to 5 or BEd degree for
teachers to teach Classes 6 to 8 or thereafter or higher class.
Patna High Court CWJC No.18445 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
6/8
Large scale appointment was made by the State Government.
The State Government became conscious of the mandate of
Right to Education, which requires qualified teachers and found
that the teachers who were not trained teachers were required to
undergo training. Accordingly, the teachers were sent for
training during the said period and after coming of the Right to
Education Act, 2009, the training was made compulsory and as
on the date, the cut off date has been fixed as 31.03.2019 as has
been discussed by the Apex Court in case of Jaiveer Singh and
others Vs. State of Uttarakhand and Ors. reported in BLJ
2024(1) SC.
10. Observation of the Apex Court in paragraph no. 23
of the Jaiveer Singh (Supra) judgment finds relevance in the
present case also, which inter alia is as follows:
“23. It is thus clear that all such teachers
working in either Government/Government
Aided/Unaided Private Schools, were required to
acquire the minimum qualifications by 31st March
2019 or they would face dismissal from service. It
appears that it was decided by the Central
Government to provide a window for all such
teachers. A perusal of the said communication
would reveal that various directions were issued so
that lakhs of teachers, who were untrained, get the
requisite qualifications prior to 1st April 2019. The
communication addressed by the Director,
Elementary Education, Uttarakhand dated 8th
September 2017 to the Chief Education Officer and
District Education Officer, Uttarakhand would
further clarify this position.”
11. I find that if the State has come out with
Patna High Court CWJC No.18445 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
7/8
notification holding that Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad
was not authorized to conduct Shiksha Visharad degree, which
according to the petitioner is equivalent to BEd and degree
obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad cannot be
made a ground to terminate the petitioner, who was appointed
pursuant to Rules, 2006 and at the relevant time, there was no
requirement of DELED or BEd degree, the State was
responsible to send the petitioner at the relevant time for
obtaining the training degree but instead, the authority
concerned has terminated the petitioner from retrospective date
on the basis of said degree, which has been recognized
equivalent to Intermediate in L.P.A. No. 28 of 2010. This Court
vide order dated 11.07.2019 passed in CWJC No.16939 of 2018
in similar circumstances, had allowed the said writ petition. I
find it apt to quote the observation made therein, which is as
under:
“In view of the above, the Court does not
find any justification to approve the action of the
respondent holding the degree obtained from Hindi
Sahitaya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad before 2006 as
invalid. The same cannot be read with retrospective effect
and invalidate the appointment of the petitioner made
prior to 25.8.2008.
Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The
respondents are directed to ensure payment to the
petitioner with immediate effect.
With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands
disposed of.”
12. In view of the discussions made in above
Patna High Court CWJC No.18445 of 2021 dt.24-04-2025
8/8
paragraphs, the present writ petition stands disposed of. The
impugned order contained in Memo No.1809 dated 16.03.2020
passed by the Director, Secondary Education is hereby set aside
and quashed.
13. Interlocutory Application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
(Purnendu Singh, J)
Sanjay/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 25.04.2025 Transmission Date NA
[ad_2]
Source link