Kameshwar Satyarthi vs The State of Bihar

Heard Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned senior

counsel along with Mr. Rajeev Kumar Singh, learned counsel for the

petitioner and learned AC to GP-17 for the State.

The petitioner has moved the Court for the following

relief:

" That this is an application for issuance of an appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s), directing the Respondent Authorities to provide training for the Middle School immediately and further for a direction to the Respondent Authorities to pay salary of trained teachers of the petitioners. AND/OR pass such other order(s) as your Lordships may deem fit and proper."

The petitioner is aggrieved by the fact that though

having been appointed in the year 1999, he has not been sent on

training resulting in him being denied the benefit of pay scale of

trained teacher.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that at

the time of appointment, it was one of the conditions that a two years

training would have to be undergone by the person, but till date, the

authorities have not sent him on training though persons later

appointed in the year 1999 and 2000, have been sent on training by

the authorities. Learned counsel submitted that there is

discrimination and also arbitrariness on the part of the authorities not

sending the petitioner for training which is causing pecuniary loss to

the petitioner for no fault or laches on his part.

Learned counsel for the State submitted that after

initially was appointed in the District of Muzaffarpur but

subsequently, transferred to Saran on 30.07.2007. A counter affidavit

has been filed on behalf of the District Programme Officer

(Establishment), Saran in which it has been stated that the petitioner

has not applied for such training. On a query of the Court as to where

was the requirement for making application, as training was a

compulsory requirement and the authorities had only to send the

petitioner which he could not have refused, there is no answer.

However, learned counsel submitted that if the petitioner applies, he

shall be sent on training.

Learned counsel for the petitioner agrees to the

proposition.

In view thereof, the writ petition stands disposed off

with a direction to the petitioner to make a formal application before

the respondent no. 4, within four weeks from today giving his consent

for being sent on training. Upon receipt of the same, the respondent

no. 4 shall ensure that the petitioner is sent on such training in the first

available batch being sent for such training. The petitioner thereafter

shall be entitled to all consequential benefits.