Chandani Kumari vs The State Of Bihar
2022 Latest Caselaw 5 Patna

           IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
                      Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9786 of 2019
     ======================================================

Chandani Kumari, female, aged about 33 years, Daughter of Sri Shambhu Jha, Resident of Village- Jhakhara, P.O.- Kadarchak, P.S.- Shambhuganj, District- Banka.

... ... Petitioner/s Versus

1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

3. The Director, Primary Education, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna.

4. The District Magistrate-cum-Collector, Munger, District- Munger.

5. The District Education Officer, Munger, District- Munger.

6. The District Programme Officer, Establishment (Education), Munger, District- Munger.

7. The Block Development Officer-cum-Secretary, Block- Teacher Employment Unit, Tarapur, Block- Tarapur, District- Munger.

8. The Block Education Officer, Tarapur, District- Munger.

9. The Bihar School Examination Board Patna through its Secretary.

10. The Chairman, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

11. The Secretary, the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna.

12. The Vigilance Department through the Additional Chief Secretary, Department of Vigilance, Patna, Bihar.

... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :

For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Adv. For the State : Mr. Ran Vijay Prasad Singh, AC to GA-XII For the Vigilance : Mr. Anjani Kumar, Sr. Adv.

Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde, Adv.

Mr. Arvind Kumar, Adv.

Patna High Court CWJC No.9786 of 2019 dt.03-01-2022

For the BSEB : Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Adv.

====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR ORAL JUDGMENT Date : 03-01-2022

Heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, the learned

Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ran Vijay Prasad Singh,

the learned AC to GA-XII for the State. The Vigilance

Department is represented by Mr. Anjani Kumar, the learned

Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde and

Mr. Arvind Kumar, the learned Advocates. Mr. Girijesh

Kumar, the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the

Bihar School Examination Board.

2. The petitioner has approached this Court for

a direction to the respondents to consider her certificate of

Teacher Eligibility Test (in short the TET) as valid and

genuine as the same has been issued by the Bihar School

Examination Board, Patna (in short the BSEB) after the

petitioner had passed the TET Examination, 2011

successfully and further for a direction to the respondents to

pay the arrears of the salary since November, 2018 - till

date as the same is not being paid to her on the pretext of Patna High Court CWJC No.9786 of 2019 dt.03-01-2022

an investigation pending against her.

3. The charge against the petitioner is of

having obtained employment on the basis of forged and

fabricated TET certificate.

4. The background to this litigation is that in

one of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases, it was found

that undeserving persons with forged degrees had obtained

employment. Under the orders of this Court, an enquiry was

instituted with the mandate to find out and identify such

teachers who had used the forged academic qualification

degrees for obtaining such appointment. Consequently, an

F.I.R. was lodged in which the petitioner has also been

arraigned as one of the accused person.

5. So far as the charge against the petitioner is

concerned, it is limited to the extent that she is said to have

passed in Paper-II of the TET examination, even when she

was shown to have failed in Paper-I.

6. It has been argued on behalf of the

petitioner that because of her having failed in Paper-I, it was

presumed that her passing in Paper-II was anomalous and it Patna High Court CWJC No.9786 of 2019 dt.03-01-2022

hinted at the certificate being forged; for the reason that

anybody who has failed in the first paper would not be

permitted to appear in the second paper or even if he/she is

permitted to appear in the second paper, the result would

not be published unless both the papers are cleared.

7. In order to dispel this confusion, the counsel

for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the

entire scheme of the TET examination, which, inter alia,

provides that for persons desirous of being appointed as

teachers for Class - VI to VIII, they are required to pass in

Paper-I only, whereas aspirants for being appointed as

teachers in Class - I to V would be required to pass in

Paper-II. Any candidate passing in Paper-I and Paper-II,

both, would have the eligibility to apply for teachers for all

the classes. This necessarily implies that if the petitioner

has passed in Paper-II, she is eligible to be appointed as

teachers for Class - VI to VIII.

8. During the course of the enquiry conducted

by the local police, even when the F.I.R. was lodged by the

Vigilance, no definite material could be collected against the Patna High Court CWJC No.9786 of 2019 dt.03-01-2022

petitioner to indicate or substantiate the charge of the

petitioners having obtained employment on a forged degree.

However, while going through the investigation reports, it

came to light that two of the officers, one from the Vigilance

Department and the other from the General Police

Department, were reckless in making investigations and had

signed the reports in a mechanical manner, without even

verifying the scheme of the examination of the TET.

9. On a complaint made by the petitioner and

others before the Director General of Police with respect to

such faulty investigation, an enquiry was set-up and before

such enquiry committee, the aforesaid two erring police

officials admitted of having signed such reports mechanically

without verifying the correctness of the allegation or of the

defense of the petitioner.

10. At that stage, the Court found it expedient

to issue notice the Vigilance Department to inform the Court

about the action taken against such irresponsible

investigators for their incompetence and mindlessness had

caused immense damage to the petitioner and her likes. Patna High Court CWJC No.9786 of 2019 dt.03-01-2022

11. Mr. Anjani Kumar, the learned Senior

Advocate representing the Vigilance Department has

intimated this Court by way of counter affidavit that the

conduct of the Vigilance Officer was found to be absolutely

unpardonable and therefore he was subjected to a

departmental proceeding and has also been given a

punishment of one black mark.

12. The fact of the matter now is that the

petitioner has passed in Paper-II examination of the TET.

13. The BSEB in its report has also admitted

that in their data-base, the petitioner is shown to have

passed in Paper-II examination, thereby making her eligible

for being appointed as a teacher. The petitioner after her

appointment had been serving in the school where she was

posted.

14. The present litigation has come up only on

the stoppage of the salary of the petitioner since November,

2018 - till date on the pretext of the investigation against

her being pending.

15. In this fact scenario, therefore, this Court Patna High Court CWJC No.9786 of 2019 dt.03-01-2022

deems it appropriate to direct that in case a representation is

filed by the petitioner before the Director, Primary Education,

Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna along with a

copy of this order within a period of three weeks, the

concerned respondent shall look into the matter and shall

pass necessary orders accordingly, resuming the salary of

the petitioner which has been stopped since November, 2018

only on the ground of pendency of the investigating process.

The aforesaid decision of the concerned respondent shall but

be subject to the final outcome of the investigation of the

case. In case, the petitioner is found to be guilty, necessary

consequences would follow. The police is also directed to

conclude the investigation at the earliest.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the

writ petition stands disposed off.

(Ashutosh Kumar, J) Praveen-II/-

AFR/NAFR                AFR
CAV DATE                N/A
Uploading Date          04.01.2022
Transmission Date       N/A