Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
Sarju Prasad Yadav – Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand – Respondent
W.P.(S) No. 6080 of 2017
Decided on : 09-01-2024
[EDUCATION] - [RECOGNITION OF TEACHER'S QUALIFICATION] - [N.C.T.E. Act, 1993; Article 141 of the Constitution of India] - [The court discussed the validity of qualifications obtained before the N.C.T.E. Act came into effect and emphasized that qualifications issued by unrecognized institutions prior to the Act's implementation could still be considered valid. The Supreme Court's ruling in Bhagirathi Prasad Dey's case was pivotal, establishing that such qualifications should be recognized, influencing the court's decision to set aside the rejection of the petitioner's claim.]
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the rejection of his claim for recognition of his services as an Assistant Teacher based on his B.Ed. degree from an unrecognized institution, while similarly situated individuals had their claims accepted.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the rejection of the petitioner's claim was arbitrary and inconsistent with the treatment of other similarly situated teachers. It emphasized the binding nature of the Supreme Court's ruling regarding the validity of qualifications obtained before the N.C.T.E. Act.
Issues: Whether the petitioner's B.Ed. degree from an unrecognized institution before the N.C.T.E. Act was valid for recognition of his services as an Assistant Teacher.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that qualifications obtained before the N.C.T.E. Act should be recognized as valid, especially in light of the Supreme Court's ruling that established the validity of such qualifications.
Final Decision: The court set aside the order rejecting the petitioner's claim, directing that his qualifications be recognized and that he be granted all consequential benefits, including arrears of salary.
JUDGMENT :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY PRASAD
This writ application has been filed on behalf of the petitioner challenging the order dated 15.01.2015 (Annexure 8) by which the claim of the petitioner for recognizing his services has been rejected on the ground that the petitioner has obtained B.Ed. degree from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata, which is not affiliated to the Public Examining Body, e.g. University/Board/Council.
2. Heard Mr. Saurav Shekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner, assisted by Ms. Nidhi Kumari, learned counsel and Mr. Arun Kumar Dubey, learned A.P.P. for the State.
3. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the order dated 15.01.2015, passed by the Director, Secondary Education-Respondent No. 2, is illegal, arbitrary and not sustainable in the eye of law.
It is submitted that on the one hand similarly situated persons appointed with the petitioner have been absorbed by the respondents, namely Ram Krishna Gope, who has also acquired B.Ed. decree from Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata in the year 1990 and who had filed W.P.(S) No.3243 of 2011 before this High Court and his case was considered and allowed on 03.06.2013 in the light of the order dated 27.02.2013, passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011, whereas the case of the petitioner was rejected in an illegal and arbitrary manner. It is submitted that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher on 22.12.1984 in Project Girls High School, Jainagar, Koderma by the competent Management Committee and the petitioner joined the school on 25.12.1984. It is further submitted that Annexure 2 is the Circular dated 04.2.1989, whereby the decision was taken that services of Assistant Teachers of the Project Girls High Schools will be absorbed. Thereafter ‘Alam Committee’ was constituted on the direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court. However, the Committee had not recognized the services of the petitioner on the ground that although he had requisite qualification, but he was an untrained teacher. Thereafter, petitioner had preferred W.P.(S) No. 4195 of 2013, which was heard and vide Order dated 04.8.2014 (Annexure-7) was disposed of by directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner in the light of order passed in the case of Ram Krishna Gope in W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011 in line with the judgment passed in the case of Sukhdeo Gope in W.P.(S) No. 5161 of 2009. It is submitted that pursuant to the said order, the Director (Secondary Education), Jharkhand, Ranchi heard the petitioner and finally vide order dated 15.01.2015, the Director has rejected the claim of the petitioner on the ground that the petitioner had obtained B.Ed. Degree before the implementation of N.C.T.E. Act and also on the ground that Dr. B.C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata has not been recognized by any statutory body and any University/Board/Council or by any Public Examination Body.
It is further submitted that Ram Krishna Gope, another Assistant Teacher, who had been appointed in the Project Girls High School, Jainagar, Koderma on 25.12.1983 and joined the said School on 28.12.1983 and had also obtained B.Ed. degree from Dr. B .C. Roy College of Education, Kolkata in the year 1990 (same year the petitioner has obtained such degree) filed W.P.(S) No. 3243 of 2011 before the Jharkhand High Court and his case was allowed vide order dated 27.02.2013 and he was directed to be absorbed in the light of order 22.02.2012, passed by the High Court of Jharkhand in terms of the order dated 04.02.2013 passed in W.P.(S) No. 2048 of 2010 with analogous cases, wherein it has been directed by the High Court to consider the case of the petitioners of the aforesaid batch cases in the light of the order passed in the writ petition filed by Sukhdeo Singh in W.P.(S) No. 5161 of 2009 and also in view of the opinion of the learned Advocate General, by directing the then Director (Secondary Education), Human Resource Develop
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 institution offering the course is entitled to award the degree until the end of the academic session, and the recognition granted by the NCTE would relate back to the date of the institution's a....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a B.Ed. degree obtained from an institution, even if unrecognized, would be valid if the course was undertaken in the given year when the reco....
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
