Patna High Court
Bipin Kumar Mishra vs The State Of Bihar on 6 February, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Letters Patent Appeal No.744 of 2022
In
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3881 of 2021
======================================================
1. Bipin Kumar Mishra (Male) aged about 42 years, son of Sri Ful Kumar
Mishra resident of Village- Charaiya, P.S.- Bhragama, District- Araria.
2. Md. Saud Alam (Male) aged about 42 years, son of Abdul Qudus resident of
Village and P.O.- Akarthapa, P.S.- Bhargama, District- Araria.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Education Department,
Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
2. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
3. The Director, Primary Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna.
4. The District Education Officer, Araria.
5. The District Programme Officer (Establishment), Araria.
6. The Regional Deputy Director of Education, Purnea Division, Purnea.
7. The Block Education Officer, Bhargama, District- Araria.
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Navjot Yeshu, Advocate
For the Respondent/s : Smt. Shilpa Singh, GA 12
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN KUMAR JHA
ORAL JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P. B. BAJANTHRI)
Date : 06-02-2023
Re: I.A. No. 2 of 2023
Heard I.A. No. 2 of 2023 for condonation of delay in
filing the present L.P.A.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.744 of 2022 dt.06-02-2023
2. For the reasons stated in the application and affidavit,
delay of 31 days in filing the present L.P.A. is condoned. I.A. No.
2 of 2023 stands allowed.
3. In the instant L.P.A., appellants have assailed the
order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.10.2022 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 3881 of 2021. The appellants were appointed as
Panchayat Teachers in the year 2017. The selecting and appointing
authority had failed to take note of eligibility criteria under Section
23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education
Act, 2009 (for short "the Act, 2009"). Section 23 of the Act, 2009
reads as under:
"23 Qualifications for appointment and terms and
conditions of service of teachers.
(1) Any person possessing such minimum qualifications, as
laid down by an academic authority, authorised by the Central
Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a
teacher.
(2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions
offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers
possessing minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section
(1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government
may, if it deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum
qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such
period, not exceeding five years, as may be specified in that
notification: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of
this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down
under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications
within a period of five years.
Patna High Court L.P.A No.744 of 2022 dt.06-02-2023
(3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms
and conditions of service of, teacher shall be such as may be
prescribed."
4. The selecting and appointment authority have failed
to take note of the aforesaid criteria before selecting and
appointing appellants and similarly situated persons. This was
subject matter of litigation. Taking note of error committed by the
authorities, authorities have extended two years time to acquire the
requisite qualifications stated under Section 23 of the Act, 2009.
Since, appellants failed to acquire the aforementioned
qualifications for the purpose of appointment to the post of
Panchayat Teachers read with the fact that they were given
sufficient time. The same was taken note of by the learned Single
Judge while dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants.
5. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently
contended that the selecting and appointing authority should have
insisted at the time of appointment that they were required to
fulfill the eligibility criteria mentioned under Section 23 of the
Act, 2009, therefore, they are entitled to some more time to
acquire the aforementioned qualifications. Courts cannot extend
time limit for acquisition of any qualification in order to regularize
selection and appointment to a particular post. It is a policy
decision of the State, therefore, no infirmity is forthcoming from
Patna High Court L.P.A No.744 of 2022 dt.06-02-2023
the order of the learned Single Judge dated 19.10.2022 passed in
C.W.J.C. No. 3881 of 2021. Accordingly, L.P.A. stands dismissed.
(P. B. Bajanthri, J)
(Arun Kumar Jha, J)
GAURAV S./-
AFR/NAFR NAFR
CAV DATE NA
Uploading Date 09.02.2023
Transmission Date NA
