MRIDULA KUMARI SINHA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State.

(2.) THE petitioner was appointed as an Assistant Teacher in the Vivekanand Madhya Vidyalaya, Mithapur, Patna, a minority aided school, duly recognised by the respondents. THE appointment came to be made in pursuance of an advertisement published in the year 1977 on the recommendation of the Selection Committee by an order dated 18-5-1978 issued by the Managing Committee in consequence thereof. THE appointment of the petitioner was forwarded for approval to the District Superintendent of Education who vide his communication dated 29-8-1989 accorded approval to the appointment recording that the petitioner held a Matric Handicraft trained qualification. THE petitioner then sought payment of salary and the pay statement of the petitioner was then prepared and forwarded to the Director Primary Education for approval sometime in the year 1994. THE matter then remained pending at this stage despite representations by the petitioner.

(3.) THIS Court finds that the approval in question was accorded by the District Superintendent of Education. Annexure-C which seeks to set at naught the appointment and approval of the service of the petitioner is also by the District Superintendent of Education. The concerned respondent is virtually challenging his own order. THIS Court further finds that from 1978 to the year 2005, a period of nearly 26 years, is an inordinately long period of time for which the petitioner has continued in service. It cannot be doubted that considering this period the petitioner has certainly acquired such proficiency as a teacher which she was expected to gain by undergoing a training prior to her appointment. It cannot be doubted that as of date the petitioner would be better qualified as a teacher based on her experience than a novice who would be appointed today as a teacher by having completed the teacher training course. THIS Court would further find that the petitioner was not unqualified person but held qualification of Matriculate Handicraft trained. THIS aspect of the matter was not lost on the respondents when they took the decision to confirm her services in the year 1989. THIS Court at this stage would not consider it necessary to dwell upon the necessity of the qualification of a trained teacher and a teacher who held the qualification of Matric Handicraft trained, for the reasons as mentioned above that the petitioner was not completely untrained hand. In the circumstances, this Court is satisfied that it is too late in the day for the respondents to completely non-suit the petitioner for mere technicality.