RAJIVE KUMAR SON OF LATE UDAY PRATAP SINGH Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND THROUGH SECRETARY, HUMAN RESOURCES DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the accompanied writ application, the petitioners have inter alia, prayed for issuance of writ of certiorari for quashing the decision dated 20.06.2008 vide Annexure-13 to the writ application, whereby the petitioners being vocational teachers, have been debarred and made ineligible for appointment to the post of the Headmaster. Further prayer has been made to hold and declare that the petitioners were eligible for appointment for the post of the Headmaster in consonance with Rule 4 (i) (ii) (a) and (b) of the Jharkhand Rajkiyakrit Secondary Schools Service Condition Rules, 2004.

(2.) The factual matrix, as has been averred in the writ application, in a nutshell is that the National Policy of Education, 1986 introduced a systematic, well-planned and vigorously implemented programme of Vocational Education and the said policy was implemented in the erstwhile State of Bihar at + 2 level and 25 Vocational courses in the 6 major areas were introduced throughout the State in 148 Schools as per Annexure-1 and 2. Under the Jharkhand Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over, Management and Control) Act, 2002 (adopted Bihar, 1981 Act). Jharkhand Rajkiyakrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya (Seva Sart Niymawali), 2004 framed and constituted Vidyalaya Seva Board and empowered it to make appointment to the post of the Teachers and the Headmasters vide Annexure-3 to the writ petition. As per the staffing pattern for the Vocational Education, the Directorate of Education, N.C.E.R.T., made a provision for three full time teachers and three Laboratory Assistants for three vocational courses at class 11 and class 12 apart from other faculty of Staffs, peons, LDC etc. The Qualification of the Teachers was also prescribed in which, it was clearly held that status of vocational teachers would be same as that of academic stream and full time teachers should be appointed by the Govt. on regular basis. The Policy further stated that they are to be designated as full time teacher as evident from Annexure-4 to the writ application. The Vidyalaya Seva Board advertised two units of teaching post as per Annexure-5 and the petitioners participated in the selection process as such, the petitioner no.1 was appointed as Instructor, Mining Geology Vocational Trade and was posted at + 2, National High School, Dumka and working as such from 06th July, 1993, till date. Similarly, the petitioner no. 2 was appointed in the Vocational Trade of Food Preservation and Processing. The Director, Secondary Education issued a letter dated 12.10.1993 vide Annexure-6, whereby Vocational courses were introduced in 40 + 2 High Schools in the first phase and in the second phase, it was introduced in 108 + 2 High Schools. The Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi vide letter dated 05.06.2007 also clarified that the students, who have passed Intermediate Vocational Teaching will be treated at par with I.A. students for the purpose of pursuing their studies at the higher level i.e. B.A. etc., as per Annexure-7 to the writ application. The Report of the Vocational Education prepared by the Jharkhand Academic Council, Ranchi clearly mentions that the vocational streams one full time teacher and one full time Lab Asstt. are appointed on regular basis but they have not been designated as per the Govt of India norms as lecturer and they have been given the nomenclature of Instructor/Lab Asstt., whereas, the teachers working in the General Streams of the school are getting higher pay scale and thus it was recommended that they should also get pay scale at par with the Teachers working in the general streams as per Annexure-8 to the writ application. The Advertisement was issued by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission in short 'JPSC' for 257 posts of Headmaster in accordance with the Jharkhand Rajkiyakrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, (Seva Sart Niyamawali) 2004. In pursuance to the said advertisement, the petitioners participated and declared successful. The notice of successful candidates were also published in which the petitioners' name was mentioned. All successful candidates, who were recommended by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission were also to appear before the Secondary Education Directorate for their formal interview for verification of documents and accordingly, notice was issued fixing the date of interview of the petitioners respectively and the petitioners appeared and showed their documents, which were verified and and were awaiting for final letter of appointment. However, the petitioners were surprised to see an item, which was published in the local newspaper, 'Hindustan', in which the petitioners read that the Secondary Education Directorate has sent a file to the JPSC for revising the list, stating therein, that the Vocational Teachers would not be considered for the post of Headmaster as evident from Annexure-11 to the writ application. The petitioners immediately applied under the Right to Information Act, seeking information, as to whether the news item was correct or not, as per Annexure-12 to the writ application. In response to the said application, the petitioner no. 1 has been informed by the Secondary Education Directorate, Jharkhand, Ranchi that as per the eligibility conditions given in 2004 Rules, which has been amended in the year 2006 in Rule 4 (i) (ii) (a), the petitioners being Vocational Teachers are not being considered as eligible for the post of the Headmaster and the said information dated 20.06.2008 vide Annexure-13 to the writ application has been impugned in the writ application. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned Decision dated 20.06.2008, vide Annexure-13, the petitioners left with no other alternative, has knocked the door of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for redressal of their grievances.

(3.) Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners in support of the contentions has vehemently submitted that the petitioners have not been engaged as Teachers in the Education Department in various High Schools, having been appointed as Vocational Teachers, though nomenclatured as Instructors etc., have qualified at par with regular teachers engaged in the High Schools at + 2 levels, therefore, the petitioners having the requisite experience are eligible for appointment on the post of the Headmaster as per the Jharkhand Rajkiyakrit Madhyamik Vidyalaya, (Seva Sart Niyamawali) 2004. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner further submits that the guidelines for vocational education provides for full time Teachers and the petitioners since 2006, have been getting the scale of lecturers since the petitioners having the qualification prescribed under the Advertisement applied and became successful but the respondents without any valid and cogent reasons, have debarred the petitioners from the process of appointment of the Headmaster, whereby the action of the respondents not only illegal but smacks of arbitrary and colourable exercise of power. Learned senior counsel during course of hearing has referred to the supplementary affidavit, filed on behalf of the petitioners, dated 28.09.2010, whereby Annexure-1, 3 and 4 clearly demonstrates that Vocational Course is full time 2 years' course and after completion of the same specified, distinct and separate certificate/degree is given to such candidates who pass the vocational course, which is known as the Intermediate Vocational Course. Annexure-3, dated 12.08.1998 clearly declares that at + 2 level is equivalent to technical education and student passing out the 2 years' vocational courses would be eligible for admission directly in the second year and Annexure-4 to the supplementary affidavit also indicates that the Instructor are teachers and they are also granted teachers' excellence award by the Ministry of Human Resources Department, Government of Jharkhand, therefore, the petitioners being Instructor/Laboratory Assistant are the only Teachers in the Vocational Course at + 2 level and upon their imparting of education, therefore, the petitioners are Full Time Teachers although they have been nomenclatured as Teachers/Laboratory Assistants. Learned senior counsel for the petitioners in support of his contentions has relied upon the decision reported in (2014 SCC Punjab & Haryana 2157) and (1992) online page 1381.