IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
S.N. Pathak, J.
Gopal Shankar Pandey, son of Sri Srideo Pandey - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand and ors. – Respondents
W.P.(S). No. 13 of 2020, W.P.(S). No. 2287 of 2019, W.P.(S). No. 14 of 2020
Decided On : 11-12-2024
JUDGMENT :
S.N.Pathak, J.
Heard the parties.
2. Since the issues involved in all these writ petitions are same and identical, they have been heard together and disposed of by this common order.
3. Petitioner in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 has prayed for quashing the order contained in memo No. 6097 dated 29.11.2019 (Annexure-5) issued by respondent No.5 whereby it has been communicated that the recommendation for appointment made in favour of the petitioner has been cancelled on the ground that the degree of B.Ed. Special Education from Banaras Hindu University is not recognized for purpose of appointment in Government School, College or added Government Institution in view of the letter of NCTE, New Delhi letter No. 77806, dated 25.04.2019, because there is no such content in the letter of NCTE, New Delhi.
Similarly, petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2287 of 2019 prayed for quashing the Important Notice No. 3345 dated 29.04.2019 (Annexure-18) and letter No. 3554 dated 24.04.2019 (Annexure-10) whereby candidatures of the petitioners have been rejected.
4. Petitioners having the requisite qualifications, applied for appointment as Assistant Teacher in the district of Deoghar. It is the stand of the petitioners that though they fulfill the requisite qualification to be appointed as Assistant Teachers, their cases have been turned-down on the ground that B.Ed. Degree possessed by them is not as per the norms and the same has not been recognized by the NCTE and as such, the petitioners are not entitled for appointment since they are not fulfilling the criteria for appointment as Assistant Teachers.
5. Earlier the petitioners in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 were appointed as Assistant Teachers on the recommendation of the Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission on 09.01.2019. Subsequently, an objection was raised by the respondent-State that B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioners are not recognized by the NCTE. Thereafter, the respondent-JSSC cancelled the candidature of petitioners on 29.11.2019. Aggrieved by the said cancellation order, the petitioners have been constrained to knock the door of this Court.
6. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned senior counsel and Ms. Ritu Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners assiduously urges that the stand of the respondent-JSSC is not tenable in the eyes of law in view of Annexures-5, 6 and 13. Learned counsel further argues that from perusal of Annexures-6 and 13 it is clear that degree obtained by the petitioners are duly recognized not only by the NCTE but also by the RCI. It appears that respondent-JSSC as well as State of Jharkhand has not gone through the particular annexures of the writ petitions and without appreciating the contention of the NCTE as well as RCI has rejected the claim of the petitioners mechanically. It has been further argued that once degree has been recognized, the same could not have been questioned or rejected on frivolous grounds. Since petitioners in W.P.(S). Nos. 13 of 2020 and 14 of 2020 were already appointed and working by virtue of interim order passed by this Court dated 08.07.2020 and further, the petitioners in W.P.(S). No. 2287 of 2019 were also having B.Ed. degree which has been recognized by the NCTE, the order of cancellation of their candidature is not tenable in the eyes of law and the same is fit to be quashed and set aside.
7. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State submits that B.Ed. degree possessed by the petitioners is not accepted and the same is not valid. Learned counsel, upon query made by this Court, has argued that certificates obtained from any University has to be recognized either by NCTE or by RCI. In this case, the same has not been recognized by either of the two Agencies and as such, the degree possessed by the petitioners i.e. B.Ed. Special Course which is of one year course, is not valid since the B.Ed. regular course is of two years. As such, any degree possessed by the candidates cannot
Recognition of educational qualifications by NCTE and RCI is binding, and cancellation of appointments based on unsubstantiated claims is unlawful.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a petitioner who has taken due permission for pursuing additional education while working and has not received any benefits during that period....
Eligibility criteria for promotion must be met, and invalid qualifications disqualify candidates from holding positions, even on an ad hoc basis.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of Section 14 of the NCTE Act and the validity of B.Ed. degrees obtained from an institute prior to its recognition by the NC....
The court established that D.El.Ed. is the sole qualification for primary school teachers, invalidating B.Ed. as a qualification and affirming the prospective application of its ruling.
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....
Point of law : Court cannot substitute the statutory qualification, which is not otherwise provided under the relevant provisions, which prescribe the essential qualification for appointment to the p....
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.