IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
RAJEEV RANJAN PRASAD, J.
CWJC No.19876 of 2019
(18.9.2023)
Praveen Singh ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Service Law–Petitioner praying for setting aside the order of cancellation of his appointment as Panchyat Elementary Teacher and payment of his salary–name of the petitioner was not mentioned in the information which were sent to the District Programme Officer (Establishment) in respected of the selected teachers during teachers employment year 2014-15 further, the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Jamui being the competent officer noticed that the Panchyat Secretary had relieved the petitioner for joining in the concerned Primary school after more than one year which was not in accordance with the service Rules, further the petitioner had submitted his joining on 09.11.2016 which was also against the Rules governing the selection of Panchyat Teachers–there is a specific finding that seems to be a case of connivance among the Mukhiya/Panchayat Secretary and the Block Education officer, Chakai as they have been involved in such acts which are in violation of the Rules–the departmental notification clearly provided that the central Government has, for class 1–8 notified in the Gazette of India dated 25.08.2010 the notification no. 215 of the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) which provides for exemption to the State Government as regards the minimum teaching eligibility requirements only upto 31st of March, 2015–it is for this reason that the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Jamui observed that exemption is valid only up to 31st of March, 2015, therefore, any appointment of an untrained teacher after 31st of March, 2015 was not valid and could not have been done–petitioner's appointed was also held not legal, being appointment 31.08.2015–the findings recorded by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Jamui in his order are well reasoned–the consequential order which has been issued is in accordance with the order of the DPO (Estab.), Jamui–the petitioner having no requisite qualification to be appointed as teacher after 31.03.2015, his case would be fully covered by the Hon'ble S.C. in (2006) 2 SCC 315–the impugned order cannot be interfered with–the FIR and Memo of charges against B.E.O (s) to be given their logical end–Writ petition alongwith I.A. dismissed. (Paras 12, 13, 47 to 53)
(2006) 2 SCC 315–Referred.
Rajeev Ranjan Prasad, J. – This writ application has been filed seeking the following reliefs: –
“(i) For commanding the respondent authorities to pay the due salary of the petitioner since 11.09.2015 to till date with admissible interest.
(ii) For setting aside the office order vide memo no.1346/Jamui dated 02.09.2019 (Annexure-14) passed by the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Education Department, Jamui (respondent no.5) whereby and whereunder the grievance of the petitioner for payment of his due salary has been rejected on baseless ground only because due to non-fulfillment of his illegal demand and further be pleased to stay the aforesaid Annexure-14 during pendency of the instant case.
(iii) For commanding the higher authority to take immediate action against the respondent no.5 or send him jail, who has misled this Hon’ble Court, if there is no fault on the part of the petitioner.”
2. During the pendency of this writ application, I.A. No.1 of 2020 has been filed by which the writ application has been sought to be amended praying for the following reliefs: –
“(a) For setting aside the Memo no.02/Dulampur dated 27.01.2020 (Annexure-19 to this application) issued under the signature of the Panchayat Secretary-cum-Panchayat Teacher Niyojan Ekai, Dulampur, Chakai, Jamui (Respondent no.9) whereby and whereunder appointment of the petitioner on the post of Panchayat Elementary Teacher on 31.08.2015 (Annexure-2 of the writ petition) has been cancelled.
(b) For commanding the higher authority to take immediate action against the respondent nos. 5 and 6 who have harassed the petitioner intentionally due to non-fulfilment of their illegal demand and further be pleased to grant heavy cost of Rs.50,000/- each against the respondent nos.5 and 6 respectively, payable to the petitioner, if there is no fault on the part of the petitioner.”
2A. The I.A. is of the year 2020, there is no opposition to treating it as part and parcel of this writ application, hence, it is allowed.
3. The writ application as well as interlocutory application have been heard together.
Brief Facts
4. It is the case of the petitioner that he had passed his secondary level in the West Bengal Secondary Examination, Madhyamik Pariksha, 2005 in second division and the intermediate examination in the year 2008 from Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi in first division.
5. In the writ application, there is no statement at all with regard to any advertisement and/or an application, if any, made by the petitioner under advertisement for appointment as Elementary Panchayat Teacher. The petitioner has made a statement straightaway in paragraph ‘5’ of the writ application that the District Education Officer, Jamui (respondent no.6) vide his letter no.836 dated 08.08.2015 sent to the Panchayat Sachiv of the concerned employment unit a merit list of the selected Elementary Panchayat Teacher after verification by the enquiry committee. Annexure- ‘1’ to the writ application is a copy of the letter no.836 dated 08.08.2015 from which it appears that in the 4th phase of teachers employment during the year 2014-15, the final merit list of the concerned employment unit had been sent for verification and the same was being returned by the then District Education Officer, Jamui to the Panchayat Secretary. The reference of letter sent by the employment unit to respondent no.6 is not mentioned in Annexure- ‘1’. Several instructions have been given vide Annexure- ‘1’ and one of them is that the concerned employment unit shall examine/verify the teachers eligibility test certificate of the candidates and only thereafter appointment letter shall be issued.
6. The letter (Annexure- ‘1’) contains a stipulation that there is a direction from the department to complete the selection process according to modified time schedule. A copy of the list enclosed with Annexure- ‘1’ would show that the final merit list of Panchayat Dulampur in Block-Chakai, District- Jamui pertains to the panchayat te
The qualifications for appointment must be judged by the rules in force at the time of selection, not by subsequent amendments.
Appointments made with proper oversight and approval cannot be deemed illegal solely due to procedural irregularities, especially when no disciplinary actions have been taken against the appointees.
The court affirmed that appointments made prior to new qualification rules remain valid, emphasizing continuity of service and entitlement to salary for teachers who later acquired necessary qualific....
The court established that educational authorities must respond timely to requests for teacher appointments, and that failure to do so cannot be used as a basis to deny approval for appointments made....
Valid appointments made under existing rules cannot be retroactively invalidated by later amendments or determinations of sanctioned strength.
Appointments obtained through forged documents are void ab initio, and failure to comply with verification processes undermines claims to employment despite long service, reaffirming minority institu....
The court reaffirmed that appointments based on invalid qualifications can be deemed fraudulent and upheld the necessity of proving the legitimacy of educational credentials.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.