Arun Kumar vs The State Of Bihar & Ors

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, State and Bihar School Examination Board.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following

reliefs :

 “A : For issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order’s, direction, quashing the order dated 17.07.2014

contained in memo no. 411 passed by the respondent no. 5 whereby and whereunder the petitioner was relieved from the post of Head Master and

the recognition of his signature for the conduct of Bank Accounts of the Vidhayalya Siksha Samiti was set aside with immediate effect and the

petitioner was directed to give charge to senior teacher of the school and further the concerned employment unit was directed to initiate appropriate

legal action

(Annexure 7)

B : For issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order/s, direction commanding the respondents for the followings :

I. To treat the annexure 7 to the petition to be nullity and non-est in the eye of law.

II. To hold that the petitioner is a trained teacher and his training certificate issued by the Bihar School Examination Board is perfectly legal and valid.

III. To pay to the petitioner his due salary from December, 2013 and onwards.

IV. Not to take any action for termination of the petitioner.

C. For any other relief/s to which the petitioner is found entitled to.

The petitioner was student of Sidharatha Primary Teachers Training College, Jehanabad, and pursuant to an order of the Court, was permitted to

take the examination of Teachers Training conducted by the Bihar School Examination Board and, thereafter, finally also got relief from the Court

where it was directed that the result be published. Later on, when the certificate issued to him was cancelled, the petitioner, along with others, moved

the Court and such order cancelling the certificate was also set aside. However, the fact remains that the college in question was never recognized by

the State Government. Though, the petitioner also applied pursuant to advertisement for recruitment under the State in terms of the direction and

during the pendency of the writ petition challenging cancellation of certificate by the Bihar School Examination Board, there is no Court decision on

such issue of recognition of the college in question by the State Government. The cause of action for the present writ application arose when the

authorities relieved the petitioner from the post of Headmaster on the ground that he was not eligible for being appointment due to the institution from

which he had obtained the B.Ed degree not being recognized by the State Government.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that once, pursuant to the order of the Court, the petitioner was allowed to appear at the examination

and also results declared, and further that during the pendency of the writ challenging such cancellation of certificate by the Bihar School Examination

Board, he was permitted to appear and applied for appointment as an Assistant Teacher in terms of the order of the Court, his subsequent

selection/appointment cannot be disputed at this stage. Learned counsel further submitted that in year 2006 itself, when the certificate of the petitioner

was restored and the petitioner had got employment, at this stage the authorities taking the stand that the certificate is invalid and, thus, terminating his

service is unjust and arbitrary. It was further submitted that when one instrumentality of the State, that is, the Bihar School Examination Board is

taking the stand that the certificate is valid and the State taking a contrary stand that the same shall not be recognized, the Court should interfere in the

matter.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that it is well within its jurisdiction to accept any certificate, even though the same may be valid, and in the

present case is such non-recognition of the certificate is on a valid ground, as the institution from which such training was obtained, itself was never

recognized by the State Government. It was further submitted that after getting appointment the petitioner has obtained the intermediate degree as a

regular student without having taken any permission from the authority, which itself is illegal, as he could not have left his teaching job and pursued the

course of intermediate as a regular student without having valid permission from the department.

Learned counsel for the Bihar School Examination Board submitted that the recognition of the certificate issued by it is the domain of the State

Government. However, with regard to such recognition, it was submitted that right from appearing in the examination to declaration of the result and,

thereafter, restoration of the certificate was in terms of the orders of the Court and not the self considered decisions of the Bihar School Examination

Board.

By way of reply, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the stand of the State that the petitioner had pursued his intermediate course as a

regular student is incorrect as he had denied it on affidavit, and the real position is that he had passed the intermediate examination as a private

student.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and submissions of learned counsel for the parties, the Court does not find any merit in

the writ application. The petitioner was never a student of a college, which was, at any point of time, recognized by the State Government. However,

due to various orders of the Court he appeared at the examination and subsequently, pursuant to the orders of the Court, the results were declared and

later when the said certificate was cancelled by the Bihar School Examination Board, the Court intervened and the same was restored. This is one

aspect of the matter. The petitioner is taking the stand that he had a certificate in his favour which is neither forged nor fabricated and valid. The

matter does not rest here. The more important question is as to what shall be the result of possessing such certificate. The Court has no hesitation to

hold that it is for the employer to decide with regard to the eligibility criteria as well as the qualification of a person to be recruited to any post. It is

further at liberty to decide as to the degrees/certificates/qualifications of which institutions be accepted or not for such employment. However, such

decision has to be based on cogent grounds and cannot be arbitrary; with regard to the employment in the present case, testing the decision from such

point of view, the fact that till date the said institution has not been recognized by the State, itself is a valid and reasonable ground for the State not to

accept any certificate or degree of a student who purportedly has obtained such certificate or degree while pursuing his course of study from such

institution. The requirement for granting recognition connotes the basic principle that the institution us fulfilling the criteria required for imparting such

education to its students. Once, the institution itself has not been found to be suitable for imparting such course, any degree or certificate based on the

course pursued by any person in such institution, has rightly not been accepted by the State. This would not mean that the degree/certificate of the

petitioner, itself, becomes invalid, as the same for all other purposes may be valid subject to its acceptance by the authorities who may rely upon it and

give any benefit or even employment to the person holding such degree/certificate. In the present case such matters cannot be overlooked. Thus, the

non-recognition of the institution and the course as well as the subsequent degree/certificate based on such course clearly raises serious and bonafide

doubts and such decision cannot be said to be arbitrary or unreasonable.

The other aspect which has been referred to by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that during the pendency of the writ application challenging

the cancellation of the certificate by the Bihar School Examination Board, he was permitted to apply pursuant to the advertisement for employment,

would not be of much help to the petitioner for the reason that at the relevant point of time the Court was considering the action of the Bihar School

Examination Board in cancelling the certificate and once the matter was subjudice before the Court, the Court ensured that till any order was passed,

just because of efflux of time the petitioner may not suffer. However, in the final order itself in the said case, the Court has noticed that the order of

the State Government not recognizing the institution in question was never placed before either the Single Bench or the Division Bench, which clearly

indicates that such issue was neither subjudice before the Court nor was taken note of by the Court, either before the Single Bench or by the Division

Bench. Thus, such aspect not having been considered earlier, the Court in the present proceeding cannot take a view which is dehors the fact that the

college in question from which the petitioner pursued his course for obtaining the training certificate was never recognized by the State Government,

the employment under the State, based on such certificate would be a contradiction in itself. Having realized the same, the authorities have only

corrected their mistake, which according to the petitioner that after so many years such termination is impermissible, is noticed only for the purpose of

rejecting the same. The law, as of now, stands settled that right to continue in service and payment flows from a valid appointment. Once the

employment itself is found to be not in accordance with the rules, which itself are based on reasonable criteria, as has been discussed hereinabove, no

right to continue on such post would accrue in favour of the petitioner.

Thus, even after a long time, when such basic flaw and illegality is brought to the notice of the authorities and them having acted upon the same

and further the Court finding such basis to be correct and valid, just because of long time having elapsed, would not foreclose the issue or preclude the

authorities from correcting such wrong/illegality, rather than letting the same to perpetuate.

For the reasons, aforesaid, the writ application stands dismissed.