AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
In the accompanied writ application, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for quashing the order as contained in Reference dated 30.07.2008
issued under the signature of Director, Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand, by which, the approval of the appointment of the petitioner has
been determined w.e.f the date on which he obtained the degree of B.Ed and further prayer has been made for direction upon the respondents to
consider the case of the petitioner afresh in the light of Resolution of the Government of Bihar dated 05.03.1991, wherein the compulsion of
training for appointment of teacher was abolished and also for direction upon the respondents for payment of salary to the petitioner in prescribed
payscale w.e.f the date of his appointment.
The facts, in brief, is that initially the petitioner was appointed on the post of Science Teacher, having qualification of B.Sc. (Hons) with Siksha
Visarad, alleged to be equivalent to B.Ed, from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, by the Managing Committee of Saint Mary High School,
Samtoli, Simdega on 01.03.1997. It has been averred that after appointment of the petitioner, the Managing Committee sent a proposal to
respondents-authorities for grant of approval of the appointment of the petitioner, but, it remained pending for quite a long period. Being aggrieved,
the petitioner knocked the door of this Court by filing W.P. (S) No. 3925 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2008 giving
liberty to the petitioner to submit representation before the Director, Secondary Education, Jharkhand, who, in turn was directed to pass speaking
order in accordance with law. With the liberty aforesaid, the petitioner submitted a representation before the Director, Secondary Education with a
prayer to grant of approval of his appointment and also to make payment of arrears of salary in the prescribed scale of Rs. 5500-9000 w.e.f the
date on which he was appointed. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-Director, Secondary Education passed impugned order dated 30.07.2008
whereby prayer for grant of approval of his appointment from his initial appointment i.e. 01.03.1997 was turned down and instead thereof,
approval was granted w.e.f 10.04.2008 i.e. from the date, when he obtained the B.Ed degree from the recognized institution and accordingly,
payment of his salary in the existing scale was allowed from the aforesaid cut of date.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that so far B.Ed degree submitted by the petitioner at the time of his initial appointment is
concerned, the District Education Officer, Gumla in its letter dated 06.07.1999 while referring to the case of petitioner to Bihar School Service
Board had categorically mentioned that the degree of Siksha Visarad being offered by Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad is equivalent to B.Ed
degree, which the Deputy Director, Secondary Education, Bihar in its letter dated 29.03.2000 has also affirmed but the petitioner has been
subjected to discrimination only on the basis of judgment rendered in L.P.A No. 235 of 2004. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted with
vehemence that even Resolution dated 05.03.1991 issued by the Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar has clarified that for
appointment of teachers the compulsion of training is not necessary rather the same was abolished but misinterpreting the contents of the aforesaid
resolution, respondent-Director Secondary Education, Govt. of Jharkhand has passed the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner
referring to a decision rendered in the case of Md. Abu Sama Ansari Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors passed in W.P. (S) No. 5639 of 2004
dated 28.03.2007, wherein the Hon''ble Court taking note of Resolution dated 05.03.1991 held that at least the petitioner is entitled to get his
actual pay-scale of untrained teacher revised from time to time till the date of passing of B.Ed degree from recognized Institution.
As against this, learned counsel for the respondents submitted that at the time of initial appointment of the petitioner, the petitioner was
possessing the degree of Shiksha Visarad, alleged to be equivalent to B.Ed, from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad, which was later on
derecognized, hence, when the petitioner has no requisite qualification at the time of initial appointment, his prayer is untenable in law. Furthermore,
this issue has abundantly been decided in L.P.A. No. 235 of 2004 vide order dated 30.03.2005, wherein it has been held that ""?? The
appellants/petitioners having no requisite qualification of Teacher Training as per Rule 2 (kh) of the Rules of 2002, many of them having obtained
training qualification from unrecognized institution and the institution even found fake by the UGC and Degree/Diploma certificate obtained in other
cases are not being equivalent to Trained Graduate/Teacher Training no relief can be granted to any of them?.."". Furthermore, in order dated
30.03.2005, the Hon''ble Division Bench has also dealt with the question of recommendation by the Deputy Director and held that the Deputy
Director, Secondary Education, Bihar have distorted the fact and had sent wrong information to the Secretary, School Examination Board by its
letter dated 29.03.2000. It has further been submitted that the respondents-authorities on humanitarian ground only approved the appointment of
the petitioner from 10.04.2008 i.e. the date when he obtained B.Ed degree from recognized institution. So far as question of discrimination is
concerned, the petitioner has not named any specific person rather made a bald statement that other persons have been granted approval even on
fake certificate of teachers training, which is not sufficient to prove the factum of discrimination. So far resolution dated 05.03.1991, as referred by
the petitioner, is concerned that is not applicable in the case of petitioner as the petitioner is a teacher in minority school and was appointed by
Managing Committee.
Having perused the materials available on record and after giving my anxious consideration to the rivalised submissions, I am of the considered
view that the petitioner has not been able to make out a case for interference for the following facts and reasons:
(i).The petitioner was initially appointed as Science Teacher on 01.03.1997 by the Managing Committee of the school in a
Government aided minority school-Saint Mary High School, Samtoli, Simdega, having possessed degree of B.Sc and Shiksha
Visrad, alleged to be equivalent to B.Ed, from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad. Thereafter, the Managing Committee of the said
school forwarded his case for approval before respondents-authorities but when no order of approval was passed by the
respondentsauthorities, the petitioner preferred W.P. (S) No. 3925 of 2005, which was disposed of vide order dated 02.04.2008.
For better appreciation, order dated 02.04.2008 is reproduced herein below:
Heard the parties finally.
Mr. K.K. Ojha, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the appointment of other persons, who had also obtained B.Ed degree
from the unrecognized institutions were confirmed.
State counsel submitted that in view of the judgment passed in L.P.A. No. 235 of 2004 with analogous cases, disposed of on
30.03.2005, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. He further submitted that if any illegality was done in ignorance of the said
judgment, the same cannot be perpetuated by this Court. He further submitted that petitioner''s appointment based on the certificate
in Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad being invalid, his appointment itself was void.
On this, Mr. Ojha submitted that now petitioner has completed the course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) in
December, 2004, which is a recognized institution and therefore now at least the respondents should consider his case for
confirmation.
In the circumstances, petitioner is given liberty to make a representation before the Director, Secondary School, Government of
Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, Ranchi (respondent no. 3), who will pass speaking order on the same in accordance with law
and communicate the same to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.
With these observations and directions, this writ petition is disposed of. No costs.
Later on, order dated 02.04.2008 was modified vide order dated 30.04.2008 to the effect that in paragraph 4 in place of
December, 2004"", it shall be read as ""December, 2007"".
From plain reading of order dated 02.04.2008, it appears that on the submissions advanced by the parties, in particular the
submission of respondents that ""petitioner''s appointment based on the certificate in Hindi Sahitya Sammellan, Allahabad being
invalid?"" and submission of counsel for the petitioner that petitioner has now in the year 2007 has completed the course B.Ed from
IGNOU, now at least the respondents should consider his case for confirmation"", the Court directed the respondents to consider the
case of the petitioner afresh on his representation.
(ii).On such direction, impugned order dated 30.07.2008 was passed, taking into consideration the order passed by this Court and
Resolution dated 05.03.1991, whereby services of petitioner was approved from the date of obtaining of his B.Ed certificate from
IGNOU.
(iii).But, taking recourse of Resolution dated 05.03.1991, which says untrained teachers can be appointed subject to their training
during service, the petitioner has approached this Court for approval of his services since his initial joining. For better appreciation,
before proceeding further, it would be apposite to reproduce relevant portion of Resolution dated 05.03.1991:
VERNACULAR MATTER OMITTED
(iv).In the backdrop of aforesaid facts, now the only question that comes for consideration is whether Resolution dated 05.03.1991,
comes to rescue the petitioner entitling him to get salary of at least untrained teacher till he obtained the valid certificate.
(v).From plain reading of Resolution dated 05.03.1991 it appear that for the prevalent corruption in non-government teacher training
institute, it was decided to take away the compulsion of teacher''s training for appointment of teacher though in place thereof in-
service training was substituted. But, in the said Resolution, at paragraph 3 (Gha), a direction was given to make necessary
amendment in Teachers'' Appointment Rules after obtaining necessary recommendation from Government. But, no chit of paper was
shown to establish the fact that any amendment was made in consequence thereof. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner
taking recourse of Resolution dated 05.03.1991. Even otherwise also, the petitioner was initially appointed in the year 1997 among
eligible candidates on the basis of his degree of B.Sc and Shiksha Visarad, alleged to be equivalent to B.Ed. But, the degree of
Shiksha Visarad, obtained from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Allahabad was termed as invalid. But, in the circumstances of the case, the
respondents-authorities have rightly decided to approve the services of the petitioner from the date when he obtained the valid degree
of B.Ed, which needs no interference by this Court.
(vi).So far the question of parity is concerned, the petitioner has neither given any figure nor any specific name, to whom, he is
comparing himself and moreover, it is settled principle of law and if wrong is perpetuated no one can claim parity with it.
As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements and logical sequitur to the discussions made in foregoing
paragraphs, the impugned order dated 30.07.2008 does not warrant any interference and accordingly, the writ petition, is dismissed being devoid
of any merit.