Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.
Koushal Kishor Thakur Son of Nageshwar Thakur - Appellant
Versus
The State of Bihar – Respondent
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 18156, 20384, 21774, 22584 of 2019, 23, 2390 of 2020, 16483 of 2021
Decided on : 13-04-2022
Recruitment - Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006 - Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006 - 2006 Act (Amended from time to time) - Summary: The court discussed the recruitment of Secondary/Senior Secondary Teachers in the State of Bihar under the provisions of Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006 and Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006. It highlighted the issue of termination of services of teachers appointed before and after the cut-off date, and emphasized the violation of principles of natural justice and the need for following due process of law in the appointment and termination of teachers.
Fact of the Case:
The recruitment of Secondary/Senior Secondary Teachers in the State of Bihar was to be made under the provisions of Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006 and Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006. Due to protracted litigation, a resolution was taken to engage guest teachers as alternate arrangements against vacant sanctioned posts. However, the engagement of guest teachers led to disputes regarding the termination of their services.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the termination of services of teachers appointed before the cut-off date was unjustified, and their appointments were treated as regular. It also ruled that the termination of services of teachers appointed after the cut-off date was unsustainable in law, emphasizing the violation of principles of natural justice and the need for following due process of law.
Issues: The issues revolved around the termination of services of teachers appointed before and after the cut-off date, the violation of principles of natural justice, and the need for following due process of law in the appointment and termination of teachers.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the termination of services of teachers appointed before the cut-off date was unjustified, and their appointments were treated as regular. It also ruled that the termination of services of teachers appointed after the cut-off date was unsustainable in law, emphasizing the violation of principles of natural justice and the need for following due process of law.
Final Decision: The court quashed and set aside the termination orders and ruled that the petitioners were entitled to reinstatement and continuity of service. It allowed the petitioners to continue till regularly selected candidates are made available against the said posts.
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsels appearing in the respective writ petitions.
2. The facts which require to be noticed are that the recruitment of Secondary/Senior Secondary Teachers in the State of Bihar are to be made under the provisions of Bihar Zila Parishad Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006 (Amended from time to time) and Bihar Nagar Nikay Madhyamik and Uchch Madhyamik Shikshak Niyojan Niyamawali, 2006 (Amended from time to time).
3. On account of protracted litigation in this Court, which travelled up to the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the recruitment remained stalled and, therefore, a resolution was taken up by the State Government on 25.01.2018 to take service of guest teachers as alternate arrangements against the vacant sanctioned posts in subjects of English, Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Botany.
4. The respective District Education Officers were made as a competent authority to approve and make available the services of guest teachers. On 24th July, 2018, the Additional Chief Secretary, who was the Principal Secretary Education Department, issued directions in respect of engaging guest teachers to all the District Education Officer/District Programme Officer, directing them to complete the process of engaging of guest teachers on the basis of merit list prepared by them, latest by 05.08.2018. For Districts of Sitamarhi and Araria, the cut off date was fixed as 28th August, 2018. Instructions in this regard were also circulated.
5. It was revealed later on that the engagement of guest teachers had been done by the District Education Officer even after cut off date. No prior permission for conducting an exercise after cut off date from Additional Chief Secretary was obtained. Resultantly some of the petitioners were appointed on the basis of a second merit list, published on 16th August, 2018 and appointments were given to them on 16.08.2018 and they were directed to join by 21.08.2018.
6. By the impugned order dated 09.09.2019, directions were issued to terminate the persons, who were so appointed after the cut off date namely 05.08.2018 and consequent order was passed on 29th of November, 2019, which is under challenge before this Court.
7. It is the case of the petitioners that rack discrimination has been done by the Department and only those, who were working as guest teachers in Districts of Bettiah, Aurangabad, Rohtas and Sasaram have been ear marked and their services were dispensed with, while in other Districts the guest teachers appointed after 5.08.2018 have been allowed to continue.
8. This Court at the preliminary hearing vide order dated 17.04.2020, noticed that the petitioners’ services have been terminated at the cost of students under going instructions in the Government run Educational Institutions. Further, it also noticed that the teachers had not been given any opportunity of hearing before passing of the order and therefore, proceeded to stay the operation of the impugned order.
9. In one of the writ petition filed, almost of similar nature, no interim order could be passed and, therefore, all the writ petitions have come before this Court along with the said writ petition for hearing.
10. Learned counsel appearing for the Department submits that as the cut off date had been fixed by the Principal Secretary Education to be 05.08.2018, no departure thereto could be done by the respective District Education Officer and a subsequent merit list could not have been published nor any appointments could have been given thereafter. The action, therefore, of terminating services of such teachers cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified.
11. In case of C.W.J.C. No. 2390 of 2020 (Ishwardayal Prasad & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), the learned counsel has pointed out that the petitioners were appointed prior to 05.08.2018 and therefore, there was no occasion to terminate their services. They have wrongly been included in the said list. Reply has been filed in the s
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
