Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
HARISH KUMAR, J.
CWJC No.17970 of 2022
(9.1.2024)
Chandra Bhanu Kumar ... Petitioner
vs.
State of Bihar & Ors. ... Respondents
Civil Procedure Code, 1908 – Order VI, Rule 1 – Court cannot travel beyond pleadings as no party can lead evidence on an issue/point not raised in pleadings – In case such evidence has been adduced or a finding of fact has been recorded by a court, it is just to be ignored – Tribunal is a creature of statute – Its jurisdiction and power is confined to appeals made to it and confined to four corners of complaint – It has neither power of superintendence nor any inherent power to do justice – Its power is limited to resolve inter se dispute between parties – It is a Court of limited jurisdiction in that sense – When a person appeals with a grievance, then jurisdiction of Tribunal is limited to four corners of grievance and Tribunal has no inherent power of superintendence or any "suo motu" power to invoke any jurisdictional matter related to lis inter-party – Tribunal/Authority on its own, could not enlarge its own jurisdiction to become supervisory authority over issue in question and pass judgment thereon. (Paras 13, 14 and 15)
Service Law – Appointment – Cancellation of appointment holding appointment of appellant-petitioner to be illegal and fraudulent and also holding that he does not possess any right to payment of pension – Apart from State Appellate Authority exceeded its jurisdiction in venturing on to decide an issue which was not even complained from any of party, order has been passed in complete defiance of Judgment rendered by Division Bench in LPA No. 280 of 2021 – Appellate Authority has ignored ratio as laid down by Division Bench, leading to dismissal of Letters Patent Appeal, preferred by State Government – Appointment of petitioner cannot be said to be vitiated by fraud, forgery or crime or illegality as issue with regard to validity of B.Ed. Degree was under consideration the date on which appointment of petitioner took place – Trust, which an employee reposes upon employer, is not to be betrayed, for not only it leads to an unsavoury feeling amongst employees not having been treated in a dignified and fair manner, but also it not being a concept of good governance – Petitioner was appointed as a Matric Trained Teacher way back in year 1999 itself upon verification of all his documents/testimonials, including B.Ed. certificate – Bihar State Litigation Policy, 2011 also mandates that all similarly situated employees should be granted benefit of covered matters and if orders of Court have been implemented in case of certain litigants, it should be implemented in respect of all other identically situated persons – Impugned order set aside – Respondents directed to ensure payment of all post retiral benefits to petitioner along with his due salary and consequential benefits – Application allowed. (Paras 16, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25 and 26)
Harish Kumar, J. – This Court has heard Mr. Ram Sagar Singh, learned Advocate representing the petitioner and Mr. Hitesh Suman, learned counsel for the State. Ms. Ritika Rani, learned counsel for the Accountant General is also present.
2. The petitioner by invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the order dated 07.11.2022 passed by the State Appellate Authority in O.A. No. T-582/2022, whereby and whereunder, apart from holding the appointment of the appellant-petitioner to be illegal and fraudulent, cancelled his appointment from the date of appointment and also held that he does not possess any right to payment of pension. The petitioner further sought a direction upon the respondents to ensure payment of post retiral benefits to him along with due salary from the period 01.10.20018 to 30.04.2022 and also for grant of other consequential benefits for which he is found to be entitled under the law.
3. Bereft of unnecessary details, the facts of the case are that the petitioner having completed his graduation admitted for B.Ed. course in session 1986-87 in Soghra College of Education, Biharsharif under the Magadh University and passed B.Ed. Examination in the year 1991. Subsequent thereto, against an advertisement published by the Bihar Public Service Commission, the petitioner having found himself eligible applied and appeared in the competitive examination and on being found successful, was appointed as Matric Trained Teacher in the Middle School, Chamarhara, Mahnar, Vaishali vide Memo No. 1407 dated 10.07.1999, issued by the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali.
4. It is the case of the petitioner that upon verification of the B.Ed. Certificate, by the Controller of Examination, Magadh University, the same has been communicated to the District Superintendent of Education, Vaishali, vide letter dated 29.02.2000 and the petitioner has been allowed regular salary vide letter dated 15.05.2000 issued by the District Superintendent of Education, copies of which have been marked as Annexures 4 and 5 to the writ petition. The petitioner thereafter continued uninterruptedly discharging his duty to the satisfaction of the authorities concerned, and subsequently, he was transferred from Middle School, Chamarhara, Mahnar, Vaishali to Middle School, Gaurhapar, Chandi, Nalanda, where he joined on 03.07.2015. While he was working in the aforenoted school, a show cause notice as contained in letter No. 4278 dated 02.11.2018 has been served upon him, seeking his clarification within 3 days, questioning his B.Ed. Degree. However, even without completion of 3 days, on the next day itself, he was served with a memo of charge (prapatra ‘Ka’) vide Memo No. 4268 dated 03.11.2018 stating therein that the appointment of the petitioner is based upon the certificate of B.Ed. Degree, issued by the Soghra College of Education, Biharsharif, Nalanda, which is not valid. The Block Development Officer, Chandi, Nalanda has been appointed as Enquiry Officer and simultaneously the salary of the petitioner has been withheld with immediate effect.
5. Aggrieved by the action of the respondent authorities and the memo of charge, the petitioner along with one another identically situated teacher approached before this Court in CWJC No. 5631 of 2021. The Hon’ble Court after considering the matter, observed that the case of the petitioners is covered by the judgment dated 23.02.2022 passed in CWJC No.5489 of 2020 (Suresh Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.) and connected matters reported in 2022(2) BLJ 381 and judgment dated 07.03.2022 passed in CWJC No. 34 of 2022 (Minakshi @ Sushre Minakshi @ Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.), disposed of the writ petition in terms of the judgment, afore-noted. It is further observed that if an appeal is preferred before the District Appellate Authority/State Appellate Authority, the same shall be taken up at the earliest and preferably decided w
Qualifications obtained from unrecognized institutions prior to the N.C.T.E. Act are valid and should be recognized for employment purposes, as established by the Supreme Court.
The court reaffirmed that appointments based on invalid qualifications can be deemed fraudulent and upheld the necessity of proving the legitimacy of educational credentials.
An appointment secured through fraudulent means, such as a forged educational certificate, is void ab initio, and the individual is not entitled to any employment benefits or protections under the la....
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
