In the High Court of Jharkhand at Ranchi
W.P.(S) No.2365 of 2007
Deyanat Hussain and others............................Petitioners
VERSUS
State of Jharkhand through the Secretary,
Human Resources Development Department,
Government of Jharkhand and others.............. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R.R.PRASAD
For the Petitioners: Mr. Rajiv Ranjan
For the State : Mr. P. Modi
For the Intervener : Mr. S.K.Tiwary
Reserved on 20.8.2008 Delivered on 20.10.2008
7. 20.10.08
This writ application has been filed for a direction to the
authorities to consider the case of the petitioners, all trained
teachers waiting for their appointments for more than a decade on
the post of teachers in the primary school in the light of the
decision rendered in a case of Nand Kishore Ojha vrs. The State of
Bihar and others (C.W.J.C No.13246 of 2003).
The case of the petitioner is that prior to 1988, all the
appointments on the post of teacher in the State of Bihar were
being made on the basis of a panel prepared district wise of all the
trained techers but the Government of Bihar in the year 1991 gave
good-bye to the existing rule by issuing notification dated 5.3.1991
wherein eligibility of training for appointment to the post of
teachers was dispensed with and accordingly, invited applications
even from untrained teachers for the appointments on the post of
teachers in primary schools.
Some of the person possessing teaching qualification, being
aggrieved with that decision, filed a writ application before the
Patna High Court assailing process of selection of the Bihar Public
Service Commission on the ground that the decision of district wise
selection is not fair and the Court having accepted the submission
2
held that the eligible candidates have a right of consideration for
the appointment in any one or other district cadre of Assistant
Teachers and the State could not force a person to confine his
application for a particular cadre. But the Patna High Court did not
set aside the process of selection. Subsequently the appointments
were made on that basis. However, the said decision was
challenged before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P(Civil)
No.23187 of 1996 wherein it was placed that out of 25,000 posts
advertised for the appointments of teachers in primary school,
19,272 persons have already been appointed as Assistant Teacher
in various schools and out of them, number of trained teachers
were 1991 whereas 6000 posts remained vacant. The Court
having considered the pros and cons of the case, disposed of
Special Leave Petition with certain directions, some of them which
is relevant for the purpose of decision of this case is being quoted
hereinbelow:
(i ) That commission shall conduct a special selection for
the purpose of appointment on these unskilled posts
from amongst applicants who have submitted the
applications.
(ii) The selection shall be confined to applicants possessing
teachers training qualifications obtained from
Government/Private Teachers Training Institutions.
In spite of such direction, when nothing was done by the
State of Bihar, the matter was again agitated in a writ application,
bearing C.W.J.C.No.13246 of 2003 (Nand Kishore Ojha vrs. The
State of Bihar and others) when the matter was taken for hearing
the State of Bihar was subjected to severe criticism on account of
non-compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed
in S.L.P No.23187 of 1996. However, the writ application was
disposed of with a direction to the respondent to follow the
judgment and direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the
case of Vijay Kumar and others vs. The State of Bihar and others in
3
S.L.P (Civil) No.23187 of 1996 by considering the case of trained
teachers for recruitment by selection or otherwise.
The State Government being aggrieved with that decision,
filed a petition for Special Leave before the Hon’ble Supreme
Court but subsequently that was withdrawn.
Further case is that in spite of direction given by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court and also by the Patna High Court, when the State
of Bihar did not act as per the direction given by the Court, a
contempt petition, bearing Contempt Petition No.287 of 2006 was
filed before the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein an affidavit was
filed on behalf of the State of Bihar stating therein that priority has
been given to the trained teachers in the matter of appointment
and only if trained teachers are not available to sufficient numbers,
the case of untrained teachers would be considered keeping in view
the said assertion, the contempt petition was disposed of.
Under these circumstances, submission was made on behalf
of the petitioners that the petitioners, who have received training
from different Government Training Colleges more than a decade
ago be directed to be appointed on the post of teachers in primary
school, pursuant to direction of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and
also by the Patna High Court.
Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, it
does appear that when the matter relating to appointment of
trained teachers in primary school came up before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in S.L.P (Civil) No.23187 of 1996, direction was
given to the Commission ( Bihar Public Service Commission) to
conduct special selection process for the purpose of appointment of
unfilled posts from amongst the applicants who have submitted the
applications and have received training from Government/ Primary
Teachers Training Institute. Subsequently, Patna High Court in the
4
case of Nand Kishore Ojha vs. The State of Bihar and others
(supra) directed the State of Bihar to follow the judgment and
direction given by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, whatever
direction was given either by the Hon’ble Supreme Court or by the
Patna High Court, that was against the State of Bihar and not to
the State of Jharkhand and that too said direction was given much
after bifurcation of the State and as such, any direction given by
the Patna High Court to the State of Bihar, that is not binding upon
the State of Jharkhand. Moreover, it appears from the counter
affidavit filed on behalf of the State of Jharkhand that after the
State of Jharkhand came into being, a new rule named as
“Jharkhand Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules 2002” was
framed for the purpose of appointment of teachers in elementary
schools wherein eligibility was fixed for appointment of the
Assistant Teacher in Elementary School as Intermediate or the
equivalent examination with two years teacher’s training or
equivalent training/ B.EL.Ed (Graduate in elementary education) /
B.Ed. CP. Ed of two years (for physical teachers). Thereupon,
Jharkhand Public Service Commission in terms of provision of the
appointment rules issued advertisement in the newspaper in
August, 2002 whereby inviting applications from the eligible
candidates were invited for appointment on the post of teachers in
Elementary School and at that time, relaxation of age of five years
was granted. Subsequently, process of appointment was
completed and now fresh advertisement has been made for
appointment on the post of teachers in Elementary School from the
eligible candidates.
Under this situation, the petitioners are not entitled to get
any relief and, hence, this application is dismissed.
ND/ (R.R.Prasad, J.)