Aniruddha Bose, J. - (1.) This appeal is against a judgment of a learned Single Judge validating, in substance, the respondent writ petitioner's appointment to the post of Assistant Teacher in a minority institution. The Institution in question is Tinplate Christian Club Middle School, Jamshedpur and the selection process in respect thereof commenced on the basis of an advertisement issued on 2nd June, 2007. A copy of the advertisement has been made Annexure-5 to the writ petition. Copy of the writ petition has been annexed to a supplementary affidavit filed in support of the memorandum of appeal. Appointment to such posts is guided primarily by an administrative circular issued by the Government of Bihar at the relevant point of time dated 4th March 1993. The relevant clause of the said circular, on the basis of which the State is questioning legality of her appointment stipulated :- "The application should be received from only trained candidates after getting the vacant posts advertised by the school management committee." (translated)
(2.) The respondent writ petitioner while applying for the post in response to the advertisement fulfilled the eligibility criteria except that at that point of time she was pursuing the course of teachers' training and did not complete the same. It is not in dispute that in her application form she had disclosed that on the date of making of the application, she did not receive the certificate. Result of the teachers' training course was published on 18th December, 2007. The Managing Committee, however, selected the writ petitioner along with other candidates on 7th June, 2008 and the select list was also published on that date. She was issued appointment letter on 8th June, 2008. Objection as regards her eligibility came at the approval stage. The District Superintendent of Education, East Singhbhum, Jamshedpur in a communication dated 18th August, 2011, the copy of which has been made as Annexure-25 to the writ petition, declined to give approval to her appointment on the ground that at the material point of time the writ petitioner was not a trained teacher. There has been subsequent exchange of communications among different authorities on this subject. Representation was also made on behalf of the writ petitioner and school management for release of her salary which were not being effected by the State. Subsequently, the writ petitioner complained to the Lok Ayukta, which prompted an enquiry by the Regional Deputy Director of Education, Kolhan Division, Chaibasa, made at the instance of the Director, Primary Education. In his report, the Regional Deputy Director had outlined that at the time of interview, the writ petitioner had cleared her B.Ed. Thereafter, by a communication dated 24th December, 2014, the District Superintendent of Education informed the Director, Primary Education that the appointment of the writ petitioner was directed to be cancelled. The reason for such cancellation was that on the date of publication of the advertisement and the last date of filing of the application for the subject post, the writ petitioner was not a trained teacher.
(3.) In the judgment under appeal, the learned First Court allowed the writ petition on the following reasoning :- "12. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the case of the petitioner needs consideration. The learned Counsel for the petitioner has been able to demonstrate and convince this Court that it was only when a complaint was made before the Lokayukta, the respondent plunged into action for taking action against the petitioner and as such antedated orders were issued. The petitioner was appointed following the legal procedures which was in accordance with law. The petitioner having fulfilled the requisite qualification, the appointment was made. It was only after 7 years that the appointment of the petitioner has been questioned and later on cancelled. Before passing the impugned orders, the District Superintendent of Education ought to have examined the Rules issued for appointment of Primary Teacher. In absence of such enquiry and in absence of any reference of the Rules in the impugned order, the District Superintendent of Education came to a conclusion that the appointment is defective which is not tenable in the eyes of law." ;