RADHA AND ORS. Vs. STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS.
LAWS(PAT)-2021-2-36
HIGH COURT OF PATNA
Decided on February 04,2021

Radha And Ors. Appellant
VERSUS
STATE OF BIHAR AND ORS. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) Admittedly, the petitioners were having teachers training qualification after having pursued their course in National Urdu Prathmik Shikshak Siksha Mahavidyalaya, Madhubani during the sessions 1979-81(A), 1987-89(C), 1988-90(S), 1989-91(A), 1990-92(A), 1991-93(A) and 1992-94(A). They were appointed as Panchayat Teachers in different schools of Mohiuddin Nagar Block Panchayat School. Subsequent to their appointment, the District Programme Officer, Samastipur came out with a letter issued on 15.10.2011, declaring the said National Urdu Prathmik Shikshak Siksha Mahavidyalaya, Madhubani as unrecognized training institute. In the light of said letter of the District Programme Officer, Samastipur, the Block Education Officer, Mohiuddin Nagar terminated the services of these petitioners and other teachers on the ground that their qualification was not recognized.
(2.) The petitioners approached this Court by filing writ applications giving rise to C.W.J.C. No. 311 of 2012 (Petitioner No. 1) and C.W.J.C. No. 22704 of 2011 (Petitioner Nos. 2 and 3). A coordinate Bench of this Court allowed C.W.J.C. No. 311 of 2012 (Radha v. The State of Bihar and Others) by an order dated 05.04.2012 upon noticing an order dated 18.03.2009 passed inC.W.J.C. No. 2322 of 2009 (Ajay Kumar and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others) wherein it was specifically held that the institution enjoyed the recognition from the Session 1986-88 till the National Council for Teachers' Education (NCTE) Act came into force in 1995. This Court had accordingly held in case of Radha (supra) that termination of service of the petitioner no. 1 was on non-est ground and suffered from non-application of mind. C.W.J.C. No. 311 of 2012 allowed upon recording specific finding that a coordinate Bench of this Court, noticing the fact that the question of recognition of the institution for relevant sessions had fallen for consideration before this Court and the institution enjoyed recognition from Session 1986-88 till National Council for Teachers' Education (N.C.T.E.) Act came into force in 1995, held in the order dated 05.04.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 311 of 2012 {Radha) (supra) that termination of service of the petitioner no. 1 by the impugned order dated 01.12.2011 was on non-est ground and suffered from non-application of mind. The decision of learned Single Judge dated 18.03.2009 in case of Ajay Kumar and Others v. The State of Bihar and Others (supra) was assailed under the letter patent appellate jurisdiction of this Court. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 01.12.2011 was quashed with a direction to reinstate petitioner no. 1 in service with immediate effect. An interim order dated 23.12.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 22704 of 2011 (Sunita Kumari and Am. v. The State of Bihar and Others) by another coordinate Bench of this Court has been brought on record whereby the orders terminating services of petitioners no. 2 and 3 were stayed. It is the petitioners' case that in the wake of the interim order dated 23.12.2011 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 22704 of 2011 petitioners no. 2 and 3 were reinstated in service. The petitioner no. 1 was also reinstated in service in the light of this Court's order dated 05.04.2012 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 311 of 2012 (Radha) (supra). It is noteworthy that evincibly the reason for termination from service was the understating of the State respondents that the institution in question did not have the requisite recognition.
(3.) A Division Bench of this Court while affirming the decision in case of Ajay Kumar and Others v. The State of Bihar (supra) by a decision dated 14.07.2010 rendered in L.P.A. No. 82 of 2010 (The State of Bihar and others v. Ajay Kumar and Others) has categorically held as under:- "From the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, that is, State of Bihar and its authorities, it appears that the institution in question had recognition but for some reasons the institution could not reach the required level or was not found fit for further recognition and hence, after the sessions 1991-1993 the authorities refused either to conduct the examination of students or to publish their results. It is clear from annexure-D to the counter affidavit of State and its officials filed in the writ proceeding that after the session 1991-1993 writ petitions filed before this court for holding of examination or for publication of results of the students of this institution were also not allowed. A perusal of order under appeal shows that all the relevant facts and the documents have been properly considered and on the basis of said consideration without interfering with the general directions contained in annexure-1 to the writ petition, the writ court held that the respondents in the writ petition should not have debarred the writ petitioners or similarly situated applicants from participating in the counselling only because the institution in question was subsequently derecognized. The writ court has made it clear that the authorities will consider not only the case of petitioners but all similarly situated applicants who passed from the concerned institution prior to the session 1991-1993." ;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.