VIKAS KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the cases, a common point has been raised and, as such, both the cases are being disposed of by this common order. It will be appropriate to record the fact of both the cases separately to understand the actual dispute relating to both the cases. CWJC No. 8164 of 2013

(2.) In this writ application, the petitioner is challenging the order of the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar as contained in Memo No. 1 -15/2012 -235 dated 26.2.2013 (Annexure -13) and the order of the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Bihar, Patna vide Memo No. 1063 dated 17.8.2012 (Annexure -8) by which he refused to grant approval with respect to the appointment of the petitioner on the ground that he has attained the age of 41 years and 1 month which is beyond the age limit provided under the Rule and Regulation framed by the State of Bihar. The Principal Secretary, Education Department, Government of Bihar, Patna vide order dated 26.2.2003 (Annexure -13) rejected the appeal as the same was filed beyond limitation period of thirty days. He did not deal with the matter on merit. This matter relates to appointment of the petitioner in D.A.V. High School, Danapur, Patna which is a linguistic minority institution having protection of Article 29 and 30 of the Constitution of India. D.A.V. High School, Danapur, published an advertisement in the daily newspaper on 22.12.2005, namely, Aaj and Dainik Jagran for the post of Assistant Teacher for the Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science and Geography subjects, preference was given to trained graduate teachers. The petitioner and others applied for the post and looking to the qualification of the petitioner, he was called to face interview held on 28.11.2006 along with four other candidates. In the merit list, two candidates, namely, Jai Prakash Prasad and Kumar Rajesh were appointed as Assistant Teacher of English subject and recommendation was made to the District Education Officer, Patna for approval from the Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna but, the District Education Officer, Patna rejected the claim of the Kumar Rajesh on the ground that his certificate of B.Ed. was invalid, whereupon, as the post of English Teacher remained vacant, three persons were left in the panel, namely, Harendra Prasad, Ajay Kumar Jha and Vikash Kumar (petitioner). The petitioner along with two others were directed to appear in the interview board on 17.7.2009 but, the petitioner was the only person who appeared in the interview and was selected for appointment as an Assistant Teacher of English and, accordingly, the petitioner was given appointment letter no. 35/09 dated 2.9.2009 with stipulation to join the post on 4.9.2009. The Secretary of the school vide letter no. 38/09 dated 15.9.2009 sent his name for approval to the District Education Officer, Patna and the District Education Office, Patna in turn recommended the case of the petitioner to the Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna for grant of approval but, the same was returned by the Staff Selection Commission, Bihar, Patna to the Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna for granting approval to the appointment of the petitioner. The Director, Secondary Education vide order dated 17.8.2012 rejected the case of the petitioner on the ground as has been assigned that he is aged 41 years and 1 month of age beyond the prescribed age. The petitioner filed appeal before the Principal Secretary, Education Department where he has taken a plea that there is no objection with regard to his educational qualification but, only of age, requested to reconsider the order as contained in Memo No. 1063 dated 17.8.2012 passed by Director, Secondary Education and to quash the same. The order is illegal and not sustainable in law. The appellate authority did not go into the merit of the case, straightway rejected the appeal on the ground of limitation. C.W.J.C. No. 7923 of 2013

(3.) In this case, the petitioner is challenging an order of the Director, Secondary Education, Patna contained in Memo No. 127 dated 4.2.2013 (Annexure -7), whereby and whereunder, he has refused to grant approval to the appointment of the petitioner on two grounds, firstly the petitioner is aged about 42 years and 8 months which is beyond prescribed age of appointment and secondly the petitioner does not possesses the B.Ed. qualification and, as such, the approval cannot be granted to the petitioner.