MD. HASHIM RAZA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Mrityunjay Kumar along with Mr. Mukesh Kr. Singh, learned counsels appearing on behalf of the petitioners and Mr. Prabhakar Jha, learned GP 27 along with Mr. Umesh Narayan Dubey, learned counsel for the State.

(2.) Petitioners have inter alia prayed for following reliefs in the paragraphs No.1 of the writ petition:

(3.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that petitioners were initially appointed as Panchayat Siksha Mitra and thereafter they were absorbed as Block Teacher after coming into force of the Bihar Panchyat Elementary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter refereed to as the "Rules, 2006") and in light of the policy decision of the State Government. It is the case of the petitioners that at the time of their appointment, petitioners were holding degree of Adeeb-e-mahir [equivalent to Intermediate (10+2)] from Jamia Urdu, Aligarh, duly recognized by the University Grant Commission. Learned counsel submitted that the appointment of the petitioner no.1 and 2 was made in the year 2005 and 2006 respectively and at the relevant time, petitioners were appointed on the basis of their qualification being equivalent to Intermediate. He further submitted that the District Programme Officer (Establishment), Aurangabad has directed the concerned authority to remove the teachers, who are working on the basis of certificates, which are not recognized by the State Government, without considering the facts relating to the petitioners and subsequent training undergone by the petitioners, as they have also passed Diploma in Primary Education (D.P.E.) course from Indira Gandhi National Open University (IGNOU) and the same has been brought on record by way of Annexure 6 series. Learned counsel further submitted that the memo No.543 in respect of petitioner no.1 and Memo No.545 in respect of petitioner no.2 both dtd. 5/5/2020 is based on the subsequent guidelines of the State Government dtd. 7/5/2013 (Anneuxre A to the supplementary counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondents no.5 and 6) but the same is not in respect of the course Adeeb-e-mahir, rather the same relates to Moallim-E- Urdu degree in respect of eight writ petitioners of CWJC No. 9131 of 2012 (Md. Shamim Anwar and Ors. Vs. the State of Bihar and Ors.). The said consideration was made in respect of failure of the institution to seek recognition of NCTE for its course and as such the appointment of those petitioners, who had obtained degree after 1996 were held invalid. It has further been clarified that in light of the order dtd. 11/5/2012 passed in CWJC No.9131 of 2012, the matter was considered and clarification was made with respect to the Jamia Urdu, Aligarh that the said course Moallim-E-Urdu degree being not recognized by the N.C.T.E. in respect of Session 1997 and the appointment was held to be illegal.