Patna High Court
Md. Sarfaraz Alam vs The State Of Bihar on 31 January, 2022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.19337 of 2019
======================================================
Md. Sarfaraz Alam Son of Md. late Khan Ahmad, Resident of Village Eman
Savai, P.O. Sahpur Undi, Police Station Patory, District- Samastipur.
... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human
Resources and Development, Government of Bihar,Patna.
2. The Director, Primary and Adult Education Bihar, Patna.
3. The State Appellate Authority Patna through the Chairman (J).
4. The District Magistrate, Samastipur.
5. The Block Development Officer, Patori District- Samastipur.
6. The Block Education Officer, Patori District- Samastipur.
7. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Chak, Salem, District- Samastipur.
8. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat , Chak Salem, District-
Samastipur.
9. Md. Mumtaz Ahmad, Son of Md. Ismail, Resident of Village Shahpur Undi,
P.S. Patori, District- Samastipur.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s : Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Ms. Binita Singh (Sc-28)
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR
ORAL JUDGMENT
Date : 31-01-2022
Heard Ms. Mahasweta Chatterjee, learned
Advocate for the petitioner.
Nobody appears on behalf of the private
respondent no. 9.
The State is represented by Ms. Binita Singh,
learned SC-28 for the State.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19337 of 2019 dt.31-01-2022
The petitioner despite being a Moulvi, which is
equivalent to Intermediate examination was not selected
for the post of Urdu Teacher in the primary school in
village Maktab, Habaspur within Chalk Salem village
Panchayat for which he had applied against an
advertisement issued in the year 2006 for appointment of
Urdu Teacher in Panchayat Elementary Schools. The
private respondent no. 9, who is Intermediate with one
subject with 50 marks in Urdu, has been selected.
The grievance of the petitioner is that for any
person to fall in the category of eligible teachers in Urdu,
he needs to have passed in the subject with the maximum
of 200 marks.
The petitioner had challenged the appointment of
private respondent no. 9 before the District Teachers
Appellate Authority as a result of which, his appointment
was set aside.
The respondent no. 9 thereafter preferred an
appeal before the State Appellate Authority. The State
Patna High Court CWJC No.19337 of 2019 dt.31-01-2022
Appellate Authority vide order dated 23.07.2019 allowed
the appeal and quashed the order of the District Teachers
Appellate Authority dated 18.03.2016 and also quashed
the notification issued by the Panchayat Secretary by
which the appointment of respondent no. 9 had been
cancelled.
The State Appellate Authority took note of Rule 6
of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Service and
Conditions) Rules, 2006 which provides that for being
appointed as an Urdu Teacher in an Elementary School,
the eligibility will be of a Moulvi or any person having
passed in Urdu subject in Intermediate.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted
that several officers of the Government including District
Superintendent of Education and Public Information Officer
of the department of Primary Education have testified that
for the eligibility for being appointed as Urdu Teacher, a
candidate must have passed in the subject of Urdu at the
Patna High Court CWJC No.19337 of 2019 dt.31-01-2022
Intermediate level, the paper of which should be of
minimum 200 marks and not less.
Despite this, it is the grievance of the petitioner,
the State Appellate Authority has ratified the appointment
of private respondent no. 9, who admittedly has passed an
Intermediate examination with Urdu for only 50 marks.
The State Appellate Authority appears to have relied upon
a Division Bench judgment of this Court, which in the
estimation of the learned counsel for the petitioner, is on a
different issue altogether.
In the case of Salamat Ansari vs. State of Bihar
(LPA No. 1369 of 2012) the issue was that Salamat
Ansari, the appellant therein, had passed his Intermediate
examination from Uttar Pradesh. Later, he sat for Urdu
examination at the Intermediate level as an additional
subject in which he had passed. Since at Intermediate
level, he had Urdu as an additional sixth subject, he was
held to be eligible for being appointed as a Urdu Teacher in
view of Rule 6 of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers
Patna High Court CWJC No.19337 of 2019 dt.31-01-2022
(Service and Conditions) Rules, 2006 as it provided for
appointment for the post of Urdu Teacher to a candidate
who had Urdu as one of the subjects. The appellate court
in that instance did not find any distinction between the
main subject, subsidiary subject or additional subject so far
as training in Urdu was concerned.
Ms. Chatterjee, learned Advocate for the
petitioner submits that in that case, the contender had an
additional subject in his Intermediate examination. The
issue here is absolutely different.
The petitioner had sought information from the
authorities with respect to the qualification regarding the
eligibility of a candidate for being appointed as an
Elementary Teacher in subject Urdu in terms of Rule 6 of
the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teachers (Service and
Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter called the 'Rules of
2006').
On all occasions, the petitioner was informed that
it is mandatory for a candidate to have passed in Urdu
Patna High Court CWJC No.19337 of 2019 dt.31-01-2022
paper of minimum of 200 marks. The information so
provided was through the mouth of responsible officers of
the rank of District Superintendent of Education and Public
Information Officer of the department of Primary
Education.
However, Ms. Binita Singh, learned counsel for
the State has submitted that a plain reading of Rule 6 of
the 2006 Rules would make it obvious that no such
requirement can be read into the qualification with respect
to Urdu. All that the Rule requires with respect to eligibility
is that a candidate must have passed Intermediate level
examination with Urdu as one of the subjects or he should
be a Moulvi, which is a specific qualification of the level of
Intermediate in the subject of Urdu.
No doubt the petitioner is a Moulvi and has the
qualification and the eligibility but merely on that account,
the appointment of respondent no. 9 cannot be challenged
on the premise that Urdu subject in his Intermediate
examination was for only 50 marks.
Patna High Court CWJC No.19337 of 2019 dt.31-01-2022
Apart from this, it has been urged on behalf of
the State that because of such confusion in the matter, in
many such appointments, in the year 2012, a clarification
has been made in the Rule 6 of the Rules of 2006
indicating that all that is required for eligibility for a
teacher in Urdu is his Intermediate degree with Urdu as
one of the subjects or Moulvi.
In view of the aforesaid, we do not find any fault
with the order passed by the State Appellate Authority.
The petition has no merits and thus the same is
dismissed.
(Ashutosh Kumar, J)
krishna/-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 03.02.2022
Transmission Date
