Back
2016 Supreme(Pat) 761
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
Irfan Ahmad Khan S/O Nurul Hoda Khan – Petitioner
Versus
The State of Bihar Through The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development and Ors. – Respondents
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 6038 and 5643 of 2014
Decided On : 15-3-2016
For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajit Kumar Ojha, Ms. Nutan Mishra
For the Respondents: Mr. Ashok Kumar Keshri, Mr. Ujjwal Kumar, Mr. K. K. Jha
The central legal point established in the judgment is that minority institution teachers are a separate class governed by separate rules and cannot claim parity with general teachers. Their eligibility is guaranteed under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
Headnote:
Bihar Public Service Commission - Eligibility of Minority Institution Teachers for Headmaster Post - Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983 - The court discussed the eligibility of teachers from minority institutions for the post of Headmaster and the interpretation of the Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. It highlighted the separate set of rules governing appointment and selection of minority teachers as well as their promotions under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution, emphasizing that they are a class apart and cannot claim benefit by trying to join the selection process initiated by BPSC. The court concluded that the communications rejecting the candidature of the minority institution teachers are not required to be interfered with.
Fact of the Case:
The writ applications challenged the decision of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) to reject the candidature of minority institution teachers for the post of Headmaster, citing their ineligibility based on their association with minority institutions.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of candidature was not illegal and that the minority institution teachers cannot claim parity with general teachers governed by a separate set of rules. It emphasized the separate class of minority institution teachers and their eligibility under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
Issues: The issues revolved around the eligibility of minority institution teachers for the post of Headmaster and the alleged discrimination in the rejection of their candidature by BPSC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that minority institution teachers are governed by separate rules and cannot claim benefit by trying to join the selection process initiated by BPSC. It emphasized the distinct class of minority institution teachers and their eligibility under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution.
Final Decision: The writ applications were dismissed as the court found no merit in the claims of discrimination and held that the rejection of candidature was not required to be interfered with.
Ajay Kumar Tripathi, J.
There are two writ applications. One is by an individual and the other by the so-called association which is a registered one, representing the cause of the minority secondary teachers. Since both the writ applications have raised identical questions, both of them have been taken up together not only for arguments but also for adjudication.
2. The issues raised herein that decision of the Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the BPSC) to reject the candidature of the claimants or applicants for the post of Headmaster on the ground that the concerned candidate or candidates are teachers of a Minority Institution and therefore, are not eligible to apply or to be considered for the post of Headmaster for which an advertisement was issued by the BPSC is illegal. The communication or order of rejection is contained in Annexure-9 (in CWJC No. 6038 of 2014) and Annexure-7 (in CWJC No. 5643 of 2014). Not only the communications are under challenge but now a mandamus is being sought for quashing of letter dated 28.03.2008 issued vide Memo No. 1755 of the Human Resource Department, Government of Bihar through I.A. No.2036 of 2016.
3. There is a statute which is known as Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Conditions) Rules, 1983. This was formulated and notified on 9th June, 1983 after the State of Bihar as a matter of policy decided to take over many private schools imparting education of such kind who were in the hands of private managing committees. To fill up the post of Headmaster for such schools, BPSC issued an advertisement inviting applications from eligible candidates. The advertisement is dated 06.05.2007.
4. During the process of such selection the applications of certain individuals as well as members of the so-called association came to be rejected by communication contained in Annexure-9 (in CWJC No. 6038/2014) and Annexure-7 (in CWJC No.5643/2014) indicating that since they are teachers of minority institution, they cannot be allowed to participate in the processes of selection. This is the cause of action for filing of the two writ applications.
5. Learned counsel representing the petitioners of the two writ applications submits that looking at Annexure-1 itself would indicate that the petitioners and the members of the association do have the requisite eligibility in terms of educational qualification etc. and the advertisement as well as the rule does not discriminate or indicate any kind of difference between the teachers of minority institutions and the so-called taken over institutions by the State of Bihar. In fact, the State of Bihar does not treat the two institutions any differential for this purpose. Still despite the above fact BPSC has erroneously rejected the claim for consideration in terms of communication dated 23.09.2013.
6. It is a case of discrimination and violation of the right of the individual and members of the association, which not only violates Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution but may be Articles 29 and 30.
7. The submissions made on behalf of the petitioners are attractive in nature but there is a basic flaw in such submission because it is a contrived kind of equality which these petitioners are seeking. Rule (in Annexure-1) is specific in nature and is meant for the set of teachers of schools which were taken over or nationalized by virtue of legislation brought at the relevant time and codified in the year 1983. They form a separate class altogether. Their service conditions may look similar to some of the teachers of minority institutions but that similarity ends there and then.
8. There are separate set of rules governing appointment and selection of minority teachers as well as their promotions. The Constitution guarantees their right for consideration of selection, if not promotion, under Articles 29 and 30 of the Constitution and they are a class apart and they can claim benefit within the framework of the rules adopted
