Jharkhand High Court
Vijay Kumar Kushwaha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 5 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
W.P.(S) No. 5337 of 2011
Vijay Kumar Kushwaha, S/o Sri Manbodh Mahto, resident of village
- Kandtari P.O. - Sand P.S. - Barkagaon, District - Hazaribagh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Govt.
of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development
Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
4. Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District -
Hazaribagh
5. District Superintendent of Education, Chatra, P.O. & P.S.
Hazaribagh, District - Hazaribagh
... ... Respondents
And
W.P.(S) No. 5339 of 2011
Mahadeo Gope, S/o Late Tej Narayan Mahto, resident of village /
P.O. - Khambhwa P.S. - Tatijharia District - Hazaribagh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department,
Project Building, P.O. / P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development
Department, P.O. / P.S. - Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
4. The Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. / P.S. Hazaribagh,
District - Hazaribagh
5. District Superintendent of Education, P.O. / P.S. Hazaribagh,
District - Hazaribagh
... ... Respondents
And
W.P.(S) No. 5385 of 2011
Ritlal Saw, S/o Late Nageshwar Saw, resident of village / P.O. - Dand
P.S.- Katkamsandi District - Hazaribagh
... ... Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Jharkhand
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department Govt.
of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. - Dhurwa,
District - Ranchi
3. The Director, Primary Education, Human Resources Development
Govt. of Jharkhand, Project Building, Dhurwa, P.O. & P.S. -
Dhurwa, District - Ranchi
4. Dy. Commissioner, Hazaribagh, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh, District -
Hazaribagh
5. District Superintendent of Education, P.O. & P.S. Hazaribagh,
District - Hazaribagh ... ... Respondents
2
---
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANUBHA RAWAT CHOUDHARY
---
For the Petitioner : Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh, Advocate
(in all the cases)
For the Respondent-State: Mr. Sreenu Garapati, Advocate
(in W.P.S. No.5339 of 2011)
Mr. Rohit, Advocate
(in W.P.S. No.5337 of 2011 and W.P.S.
No.5385 of 2011)
---
Through Video Conferencing
---
03/05.01.2022 Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Lalan Kumar Singh,
submits that all these three writ petitions involve identical issues and
accordingly, they are taken up together.
2. The present cases have been filed for the following relief:
"For a direction upon the respondents to issue letter of
appointment which has been declined orally on the ground that the
petitioners' Teachers training Certificate namely "Shiksha Visarad"
from Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabah, (an institution of
National importance by Govt. of India and is a deemed University
under U.G.C. Act), is not recognized by NCTE, though as a matter of
fact NCTE Act itself is not applicable in case of the degree of
"Shiksha Visarad" awarded by the Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag,
Allahabad as has been held by the appellant authority of NCTE while
deciding appeal with respect to refusal of recognition of "Shiksha
Visarad" degree of Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad, it
has been observed that NCTE does not recognize the degree, it
recognizes only the institutions imparting Teachers Training course in
face to face mode, whereas "Shiksha Visarad" degree awarded by the
Hindi Sahitya Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad by way of distant
education mode and further recently this Hon'ble Court in batch cases
bearing W.P.S. No.2102/08 and several analogous writ applications
has been pleased to pass order dated 14.7.11 directing the
respondents to issue letter of appointment within a period of four
months to those writ petitioners who are similarly situated to the
petitioner and are successful candidates of the same examination
2002-03 and it has been further directed, not to insist for Teachers
Certificate in HO language from an Institute recognized by NCTE as
this was not condition in the advertisement made in the year 2002 and
condition of recognition of NCTE has been brought subsequent to the
advertisement by, different letters."
3. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the State Mr. Sreenu
Garapati in W.P.S. No.5339 of 2011 and Mr. Rohit in W.P.S. No.5337
of 2011 and W.P.S. No.5385 of 2011, jointly submit that the present
writ petitions are fully covered against the petitioner(s) by virtue of
judgement passed by this Court in W.P.(S). No.2827 of 2004 and
other analogous cases decided on 13.03.2014. They submit that the
issue involved in the said writ petitions was as to whether the teachers
training qualification i.e., Shiksha Visarad from Hindi Sahitya
Sammelan, Prayag, Allahabad can be treated equivalent as B.ed.
degree in terms of Rule 2 (Kha) of Teachers Recruitment Rule, 2002
as amended from time to time and the said issue has been decided
against the writ petitioners. Learned counsels submit that accordingly,
the present cases are covered by the aforesaid judgment.
4. The aforesaid judgment passed in W.P.S. No.2827 of 2004 with
other analogous cases covers the issue involved in the present cases is
not disputed by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
petitioner(s).
5. Considering the fact that the issue involved in the present writ
petitions is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgement relied upon
by the respondents, no relief can be granted to the writ petitioner (s) in
the present cases.
6. Accordingly, the present cases are hereby dismissed.
7. Pending interlocutory application, if any, is closed.
(Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.)
Saurav
