IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.6874 of 2004
GHULAM ABU ASIM
Versus
BIHAR VIDYALAYA SEVA BOARD &OR
-----------
8. 14.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel
for the State.
The petitioner came to this Court originally seeking
mandamus for grant of approval of his appointment as Assistant
teacher in the subject of „Urdu‟ in a Government recognized minority
School i.e. Eraqui Urdu Girls High School, Ansarnagar, Nawadah as
also for arrears of salary due since July, 1999. During the pendency of
the writ application, the Respondent-Commission has refused to grant
approval by its letter dated 19.4.2006 and in pursuance of which the
School in question has terminated the services of the petitioner by an
order dated 3.5.2006. Subsequently, the School in question on
15.5.2006 has sent a fresh proposal to reconsider the grant of approval
of the appointment of the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner
was originally appointed on 20.1.1986 as Assistant teacher in Urdu in
pursuance of an advertisement and open selection. In view of the fact
that the petitioner did not hold B.Ed. qualification, under a
Government instruction dated 21.12.1982 the petitioner was appointed
on a monthly salary of Rs. 500/- only. He acquired the qualification of
B.Ed. subsequently when he was granted regular scale with other
consequential benefits available to him subsequently only in terms of
the aforesaid Government circular. The petitioner also holds double
-2-
M.A. qualification in Urdu and in Persian. That the petitioner was
appointed as Assistant teacher for the subject „Urdu‟ when he was also
required to impart education in History additionally. The Respondent-
authorities insist that the petitioner was appointed as a History teacher
for which he does not hold qualification and, therefore, the refusal to
grant approval to the appointment.
A counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has
been filed on behalf of Respondent no. 1. The Respondent insists on
the illegality in the appointment of the petitioner without having
trained qualifications but refuses to answer the Government circular
dated 21.12.1982. That puts one aspect of the matter at rest against the
respondents.
The institution in question is a Muslim minority institution.
The institution states that it has appointed the petitioner as an Urdu
teacher, to additionally teach History. At this stage, the qualifications
of the petitioner as urged above are also to be taken note of.
Interestingly, while the institution, which made the appointment, says
that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Urdu teacher, the
Respondent no. 1-Commission considers it prudent to suggest that the
appointment was on the post of History teacher and that the institution
which made the appointment is making statements “as an after
thought”. This Court finds the pleadings of the Respondents to be
thoroughly inadequate. The institution which made the appointment is
the only competent authority to state on what subject the appointment
is made which is corroborated by Annexure-4 dated 6.10.1991. The
-3-
genuineness and correctness of which is not denied in the counter
affidavit. For the Commission to urge that the petitioner was
appointed as a teacher in the subject of History to impart education in
Urdu is only an attempt of the Commission to unnecessarily confuse
the matter. Academic qualifications of the petitioner in the subject of
Urdu on which the institution in question states to have appointed him
is a matter which appears to have no relevance for the Commission,
acting like a Bull and China shop that what it says is correct rather
what the institution says.
This Court finds it difficult to sustain the order of the
Commission dated 19.4.2006, which is, accordingly, quashed. As a
consequence the communication of the institution dated 3.5.2006 loses
its validity. That the petitioner is imparting education as a teacher
since 1986 is an issue which simply cannot be ignored.
The Commission is now directed to consider the case of the
petitioner in light of the request of the institution dated 15.5.2006 and
pass necessary orders in accordance with law when the claim of the
petitioner for arrears of salary shall also be considered appropriately
by the Respondents.
Let such decision and all consequential action be taken
positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt
and/or production of a copy of this order.
This application is disposed off.
AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.)
-4-