Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
S.B.Sinha and G.C.Bharuka JJ.
Birendra Prasad Singh
Versus
State Of Bihar
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 8718 of 1991 ;
Decided On : DECEMBER 16, 1992
APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT TEACHERS - ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA - MATRIC TRAINED - ADVERTISEMENT - INTERPRETATION - RELAXATION OF QUALIFICATION - LEGALITY - APPOINTMENT OF UNQUALIFIED PERSONS - FORGED MARK-SHEETS - IMPERSONATION - INVESTIGATION AND ACTION - DIRECTOR PRIMARY EDUCATION'S ROLE.
Fact of the Case:
Petitioners, who applied for the post of Assistant Teachers despite not being matric trained at the time of advertisement, were interviewed and their names included in the panel. However, they were not appointed due to lack of requisite qualifications. They alleged irregularities in the appointment process, including forged mark-sheets and impersonation.
Finding of the Court:
1. The advertisement clearly stipulated that only matric trained persons could apply for the posts. 2. Petitioners' applications could not have been entertained as they did not fulfill the minimum eligibility criteria. 3. Appointment of petitioners would have violated Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. 4. Allegations of forged mark-sheets and impersonation require serious consideration and investigation.
Issues: 1. Whether petitioners, who were not matric trained at the time of advertisement, could be considered for appointment as Assistant Teachers. 2. Whether the State's action in entertaining petitioners' applications and including their names in the panel conferred any legal right on them to be appointed. 3. Whether the allegations of forged mark-sheets and impersonation made by the petitioners warranted investigation and action.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The advertisement unambiguously specified matric trained as the minimum eligibility criterion for the posts. 2. Petitioners' applications could not be entertained as they did not fulfill the eligibility criteria on the last date of filing applications. 3. Appointment of petitioners would have been violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India as it would have discriminated against other eligible candidates. 4. The allegations of forged mark-sheets and impersonation, if found to be true, required serious consideration and investigation to ensure accountability and prevent recurrence.
Final Decision: 1. The petition was dismissed as the petitioners did not fulfill the eligibility criteria and their appointment would have been illegal. 2. The Director Primary Education was directed to investigate the allegations of forged mark-sheets and impersonation and take appropriate action, including instituting criminal cases if necessary.
S. B. Sinha, G. C. Bharuka, JJ.
1. In this application the petitioners have prayed for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents and in particular the respondent No.4 to appoint the petitioners to the posts of Assistant Teacher.
2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass.
3. An advertisement had been issued in the year 1988 from the office of the Director (Primary Education-cum-Additional Secretary, bihar Patna inviting application from the eligible candidates for appointment to the post of Assistant Teachers in the scale of pay of trained matriculate.
4. Admittedly at the relevant time the petitioners were not trained teachers.
5. It is admitted that applications were invited only from persons having the qualification of matric trained which was minimum qualifications for appointment to the said posts. Despite the fact that the petitioners at that point of time were not trained, they filed applications for their appointment stating that they had appeared at the Training exami. nation. The petitioners however, were directed to appear at the interview on 17-3-1989 and to submit their educational certificates.
6. The petitioner Nos.3 and 4 submitted their training certificates as by that time their results have been published. So far as petitioner nos.1, 2, 5 and 6 are concerned, they requested for grant of sometime for producting the said documents as even at that point of time they had not obtained their mark-sheets.
7. According to the petitioners, the time asked for by them had been granted. The petitioners have stated that thereafter a merit list was prepared, wherein petitioners No.1 was placed at Serial No.1, petitioner No.3 at Serail No.44, petitioner No.4 at Serial No.53 and petitioner No.6 at Serial No.3 of the general category list and petitioner nos.2 and 5 were placed at Serial Nos.1 and 2 in the scheduled caste category list.
8. According to the petitioners, they were thereafter directed to appear on 10-1-1991 with all certificates for verification, by a letter dated 31-12-1990 a copy whereof is contained in Annexure-3 to the writ application.
9. However, no appointment letter had been issued in favour of the petitioners. It is the case of the petitioners that on 31-1-1991, 80 to 90 persons were appointed in the Chapra Division and they were posted in different schools but the petitioners have not been appointed. Upon enquiry made in this regard, the petitioners came to learn that various irregularities had been committed in the mattes of appointment.
10. "the petitioners in this connection have stated thus : -"that after being not appointed the petitioners inquired from the office of R. D. D. E. Saran Division Chapra about the reasons for their non-appointment. During the course of inquiry the petitioners came to know that several persons have been appointed by the R. D. D. E. namely, Shri Gopal Krishna prasad with the conspiracy of his official staffs who were even not applied as per advertisement and who had not appeared in the interview. The petitioners have been able to search one person, namely, Shri Baleshwar Prasad Singh who has been posted in Doila Basic School Chapra. That no only this, during the course of inquiry the petitioners came to know that several persons have been appointed on forge marks-sheet. The petitioners have been able to collect the name of some such type of persons who have been appointed on forge marks sheets by the R. D. D. E. by taking huge amount of illegal gratification. They are -Name place of posting 1. Punya Kall Singh -Govt. Basic School Mohammadpur 2. Dinesh Kr. Singh do Do 3. Arun Prasad farsha Fulwaria Basic School 4. Pradip Kr. Yadav rasulpur Chatti Basic School 5. Rajendra Singh thawa Basic School 6. Suresh Singh doela Basic School 7. Ajay Singh bansonbi Basic School 8. Ram Pukar Singh aughadan Basic School.9. Harendra Singh dihi Basic School. That petitioners have also come to know about the appointment of the persons who have been give
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
