Back
High Court of Patna
Aftab Alam and A.N. Trivedi, JJ.
Kumud Kumari Srivastava and 46 Ors. – Petitioners
Vs.
The State of Bihar and others – Respondents
C.W.J.C. Nos. 10397/1992, 3848, 7239, 5103, 8720, 4427, 8498, 6293, 1764 of 1993, 1181/1994, 1772/1992, 5585, 8492, 6164, 2394, 11924, 2870/1993, 2725, 1709, 1430, 2077, 1604, 1654, 3064, 1705, 1184, 1182, 2752, 2676/1994, 6777/1993, 5586/1993, 1704, 1224/1994, 8499/1993, 1223, 1551/ 1994, 12326/1992, 1427/1994, 8741, 4145, 8858/1993, 2371/1994, 12930/ 1993, 1779/ 1994, 5116/1993, 1549 /1993 and 2878 of 1994.
Decided On : 1.5.1995
PROJECT SCHOOLS - SCHEME - ESTABLISHMENT/TAKING OVER OF SCHOOLS IN THREE PHASES - PROVISIONS RELATING TO RECOGNITION/REGULARISATION OF SERVICES OF TEACHERS AND PAYMENT OF THEIR SALARY GOVERNED BY DIFFERENT SETS OF CIRCULAR LETTERS - PROVISIONS OF CIRCULAR LETTERS RELATING TO PROJECT SCHOOLS OF FIRST PHASE HAVE NO APPLICATION TO PROJECT SCHOOLS OF SECOND PHASE - AGE LIMIT FOR APPOINTMENT OF TEACHERS - MAXIMUM AGE LIMIT FOR GENERAL CATEGORY - RELAXATION OF AGE LIMIT FOR HARIJAN (SCHEDULED CASTES) AND SCHEDULED TRIBES CANDIDATES - CALCULATION OF AGE - PROVISION OF CIRCULAR LETTER NO. 142 DATED 4-2-1989 NOT RETROSPECTIVE - PROVISION OF CLAUSE 6 (III) OF NOTIFICATION NO. 129 DATED 30-11-1981 NOT APPLICABLE TO PROJECT SCHOOLS - MINIMUM QUALIFICATION FOR RECOGNITION OF TEACHERS - DATE OF SCREENING AS RELEVANT DATE FOR POSSESSING MINIMUM QUALIFICATIONS - NO REQUISITE TRAINING QUALIFICATION - NO BACHELORS' DEGREE - SCREENING OF SCHOOLS - STAY ORDER PASSED BY COURT - CASES DISPOSED OF WITH DIRECTIONS TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF PETITIONERS.
Fact of the Case:
Batch of cases relating to 'Project Schools' established by the Government under its scheme aimed at providing, in each block of the State, atleast four Secondary/High schools out of which one must be a girls school. Petitioners in most of the cases seek appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to recognise/regularise their services in the Government following the taken-over of the private schools where the petitioners had been working. In some of the cases the controversy has not reached the stage of recognition/regularisation of services of the individual teachers and the claim is for a hitherto private school to be taken over as a project school.
Finding of the Court:
1. Project schools were established/taken over in three completely distinct and separable phases; In 1981-82 some school were taken over as project schools; these are commonly referred to as the 'first phase project schools'; In the second phase more project schools were taken over in 1984-85 and in the third phase still more schools were taken over as project schools in 1988-89 in this batch, cases relate to the project schools taken over in the second phase in the year 1984-85. 2. The provisions concerning the project schools, particularly those relating to the recognition/regularisation of services of the teachers of the schools taken over as project schools and the payment of their salary etc. are governed by different sets of circulars and the provisions contained in the circulars relating to the project schools of the first phase have no application to the project schools of the second phase and neither set of circulars has any application in the case of the project schools of the third phase. 3. The stand of the State that the schools were taken over in three different phases is quite correct and must be accepted. 4. The Government has issued different sets of circular letters governing the project schools taken over in different phases and the circulars issued in respect of the project schools of the first phase have no application in the case of the project schools of the second phase. 5. The cases in hand are governed by circular letter nos. 142 dated 23-2-1985 and 142 dated 4-2-1989. 6. The provision contained in para VI of circular letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989 fixing the maximum age limit for appointment of teachers is neither unreasonable nor arbitrary and, therefore, does not warrant any interference by this Court and the authorities did not act either arbitrarily or unreasonably in not recognising/regularising the services of those teachers who were overage in terms of para VI of letter no. 142 dated 4-2-1989. 7. The provision relating to the requisite qualifications is contained in para IV of circular letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989. Unlike the criterion relating to age, however, the provision laying clown the minimum qualification does not fix any elate on which the candidate is required to possess this qualification. It, thus follows that the refusal to recognize/regularize the services of the petitioners on the ground that they did not possess the qualification of “trained graduate” on the elate on which the appointment was made by the managing committee is not supported by the Government policy decision as stated in the circular letter no. 142, dated 4-2-1989 and it can only be described as the decision of the official purporting to supplement the Government policy decision. 8. The cut-off elate for possessing tile minimum qualifications must be the date on which the school in question is examined by the screening committee to consider the cases of its teachers for recognition/regularisation of their services. 9. A B.T. certificate does not come upto the criterion of 'trained graduate'. 10. No material was brought to our notice in support of the contention that Shiksha Shastri was equivalent to B.Ed. and in that view it is not possible to give any positive directions that persons holding the degree of Acharya or Shiksha Shastri must be treated as trained graduate for the purpose of circular no. 142, dated 4-2-1989.
Issues: None
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The project schools were taken over in different and separable phases. In this batch, the cases relate to the project schools taken over during the second phase in the year 1984-85. 2. The Government has issued different sets of circular letters governing the project schools taken over in different phases and the circulars issued in respect of the project schools of the first phase have no application in the case of the project schools of the second phase. 3. The cases in hand are governed by circular letter nos. 142 dated 23-2-1985 and 142 dated 4-2-1989.
Final Decision: 1. C.W.J.C. Nos. 10397 of 1992, 3848, 7239, 5103, 8720, 4427, 8498, 6293, 1764 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. No. 1181 of 1994 are dismissed. 2. C.W.J.C. Nos. 1772, 5585 of 1993 and 2752 of 1994 related to cases where the petitioners were refused regularisation of services on the ground that they were underage on the date of their appointment by the Managing Committee of the concerned schools. The matters contained in these writ petitions are remitted back to the concerned authorities to take a fresh decision in the light of this judgment. 3. C.W.J.C. Nos. 8492, 6164, 2394, 11924, 2870 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. No. 2725, 1709, 1430, 2077, 1604, 1654, 3064, 1705, 1184, 1182, 2752 and 2676 of 1994 are allowed and the matters contained therein are remitted back to the concerned authorities to take fresh decisions in those cases in the light of this judgment. 4. C.W.J.C. Nos. 5586 and 6777 of 1993 and C.W.J.C. nos. 1704 and 1224 of 1094 are dismissed. 5. In C.W.J.C. Nos. 8499, 1223 and 1551 of 1994, it will be open to the petitioners to file fresh representations before the concerned authorities who will dispose them of in accordance with law. 6. In respect of the other cases dealt with in this judgment, appropriate directions have been given while dealing with those cases. The authorities shall act in accordance with those directions.
Aftab Alam J.
This batch is made up of a large number of cases relating to 'Project Schools'. The petitioners in most of the cases in this batch seek appropriate directions to the concerned authorities to recognise/regularise their services in the Government following the taken-over of the private schools where the petitioners had been working. In some of the cases the controversy has not reached the stage of recognition/regularisation of services of the individual teachers and the claim is for a hitherto private school to be taken over as a project school. The cases in this batch are based on similar facts and involve identical questions of law and hence they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order. For the sake of convenience this large group has been divided into subgroups and a number of cases have been dealt within smaller sub-groups. There are a few cases Which were heard along with the cases being disposed of by this judgment but it was found that they do not fall into any of the sub-groups taken up for consideration in this judgment and hence those cases are proposed to be re-listed for hearing and those would be disposed of separately.
2. 'Project Schools' are the name given to schools established by the Government under its scheme aimed at providing, in each block of the State, atleast four Secondary/High schools out of which one must be a girls school. These schools, as per the Government scheme, would be 'established', in most cases, by taking over a private school which had been 'granted permission for establishment' or was atleast a 'proposed school' in terms of the provisions of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act.
3. The idea appears to have been first mooted in circular no. 1115 dated 27-51981 issued by the Director (Secondary Education)-cum-Special Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar. This letter noted the fact that there were a number of blocks in the State where there were less than four high schools and in 435 blocks out of a total of 587 blocks in the State, there was not one recognised girls high school. The letter accordingly, declared the resolve of the Government to provide four high schools in each block, at least one of which would be a girls high school. The scheme was proposed to be accomplished during 1981-82 to 1984-85, the remaining four years of the 6th five year plan period. The letter gave the numbers of the schools to be established/taken over in each of these years from 1981-82 to 1984-85 and proposed to establish 650 schools during the period of four years. It was also stated in the letter that in 1981-82, the first year of the scheme, priority would be given to the regions of Santhal Parganas and Chotanagpur which were relatively more backward in the sphere of education. Hence, the letter asked the District Education Officers posted in the Chotanagpur and Santhal Parganas regions to prepare a list of such blocks where there were two or less schools. It was also stipulated in the letter that for being taken over as a project school preference would be given to such schools which had been given 'permission for establishment' or were at least 'proposed schools' (within the meaning of the provisions of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act) and in case there were no such schools in existence from before, care should be taken that some schools were brought to a standard where they would fulfil the conditions for the grant of permission for establishment/proposed schools. The stipulation appears to be based on pragmatic considerations and the idea was that the Government may takeover such schools which had atleast their own land, building etc. and the limited resources of the Government may not be unduly stretched in providing amenities like land, building etc. for the schools. One is bound to appreciate the positive pragmatism on which the scheme was based. It is another matter that in course of implementation the scheme
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
