Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE SHREE CHANDRASHEKHAR, HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
The State of Jharkhand – Appellant
Versus
Bal Mohan Prasad, son of Rambrat Sahu – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 138 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 367 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 368 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 369 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 371 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 379 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 427 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 428 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 429 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 431 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 432 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 433 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 467 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 472 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 485 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 490 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 491 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 507 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 508 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 509 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 530 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 531 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 533 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 534 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 535 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 536 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 560 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 575 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 576 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 577 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 589 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 591 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 594 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 595 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 618 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 619 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 620 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 621 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 622 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 624 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 625 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 632 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 633 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 634 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 635 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 636 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 637 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 638 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 639 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 640 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 642 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 643 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 662 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 684 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 686 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 691 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 692 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 694 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 695 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 698 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 702 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 703 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 706 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 710 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 712 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 713 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 714 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 715 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 716 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 717 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 718 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 726 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 730 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 732 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 752 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 753 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 754 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 755 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 760 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 773 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 774 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 775 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 787 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 788 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 789 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 791 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 792 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 831 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 838 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 839 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 844 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 845 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 846 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 847 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 848 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 853 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 854 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 862 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 863 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 864 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 865 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 866 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 868 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 883 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 884 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 899 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 900 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 901 of 2019, L.P.A. No. 25 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 40 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 55 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 59 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 62 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 73 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 107 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 108 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 130 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 132 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 142 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 152 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 153 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 164 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 167 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 168 of 2020, L.P.A. No. 219 of 2021, L.P.A. No. 245 of 2021,
Decided on : 19-01-2024
[EDUCATION] - [Regularization of Teachers] - [Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Condition) Rules, 1983; Article 226 of the Constitution; Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh v. State of Bihar & Ors.; State of Bihar v. Project Uchcha Vidya, Sikshak Sangh] - [The court discussed the legal framework surrounding the regularization of teachers in Project Schools, emphasizing the authority of the State to set educational qualifications and the binding nature of previous court decisions. The court interpreted the provisions of the Bihar Nationalized Secondary Schools (Service Condition) Rules, 1983, which mandate that teachers must possess the necessary qualifications at the time of appointment, and concluded that the writ court overstepped its jurisdiction by modifying the State's policy decision regarding teacher qualifications.]
JUDGMENT :
Per, Shree Chandrashekhar, A.C.J.
These Letters Patent Appeals have been filed by the State of Jharkhand to challenge the order dated 5th September 2018 passed in W.P.(S) No.921 of 2011 and analogous cases. One of these appeals (LPA No.155 of 2020) arises out of Civil Review No.80 of 2018 which was preferred by the State of Jharkhand against the order passed in WP(S) No.5994 of 2013. The State of Jharkhand has questioned the legality of the directions issued by the writ Court for modifying the policy decision in the Resolution dated 25th April 2018; one of the directions is to regularize the untrained teachers.
2. Briefly stated, the State of Bihar mooted a scheme to establish Project Schools in every Block across the State for imparting education to the children. The policy decision of the State of Bihar in this regard was contained in Circular dated 27th May 1981. Under the scheme, four Project Schools including a Girls High School were to be established in each Block in different phases. In the “first phase”[The period 1981-82 is referred to as “first phase”], 150 Project Schools were established but in the subsequent years the scheme was stalled and no progress for the opening of the Project Schools was made. Later, the State of Bihar decided to select 300 more Schools during the “second phase”[The period 1984-85 is referred to as “second phase”] which were to be taken over as the Project Schools. The State Government selected and notified 75 such schools through letter no.108 dated 12th February 1985 which were to be established with the assistance of the local people and a 3-man Committee was constituted to select the remaining 225 schools. At this stage, this is necessary to indicate that in the first phase1 the Project Schools were established by the State Government and its management and control also remained with the State Government. In the second phase2, the High Schools managed by the local people were identified for being taken over and to be established as the Project Schools. The manner of selection of the schools for establishment of the Project Schools was provided in the letter dated 23rd February 1985 under which the establishment of schools at the Block headquarters was the first and foremost priority. It was further provided that the selection of the school where more than one school was established in the Block shall be based on the date of permission for the establishment and physical resources provided in the school. In the “second phase”, the qualification for appointment of the teacher and the maximum number of teachers in the school were changed and a government letter dated 4th February 1989 was issued in this regard. Under this government letter, one of the conditions for the appointment of a teacher was that he must have been working in the school as of that date and his appointment was made by the Managing Committee before the permission was granted to establish the school.
3. A large number of writ petitions were filed in the Patna High Court to challenge the government letter dated 4th February 1989 and after a long-drawn legal battle the controversy was set at rest by the decision of the Full Bench of the Patna High Court. In the judgment dated 7th December 1999 delivered in “Project Uchcha Vidyalaya (F.B)”[Project Uchcha Vidyalaya Shikshak Sangh v. State of Bihar & Ors. : 2000 (1) PLJR 287], the Full Bench of the Patna High Court held that the establishment/take-over of the schools was a continuous process under the scheme envisaged by the government and, therefore, the mode and manner of selection of the teachers and criteria applied in the first phase1 shall be applied in the selection made during 1984-85. It was further held that the staffing pattern of the teachers including Headmasters/ Headmistress shall be as prescribed in the government letter dated 12th October 1982 and untrained teachers would also be eligible for appointment. Against the judgment of the Full Bench of the P
The court established that the State has the authority to set educational qualifications for teachers and that the writ court cannot alter policy decisions unless they are found to be arbitrary or un....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of adhering to prescribed qualifications for induction in service to avoid violating Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
The court established that the State's policy decisions regarding service recognition and salary fixation must align with constitutional mandates and prior judicial directives, and that such policies....
The court established that the appointment of teachers under the Jharkhand Education Project Council is contingent upon verification of qualifications and approval by the competent authority, and tha....
Appointments made in violation of statutory provisions are void ab initio, reinforcing the requirement for lawful selection processes in public employment to uphold Articles 14 and 16 rights.
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
