AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Date : 17-08-2026 Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the State.
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of appropriate writ(s), order(s), direction(s) to the respondent for the following relief/s:-
“I. To quash the letter no.70 dated 13 June 2020 (which serial 14, 22 & 51 in Appendix-x) issued by the district programme officer (literacy) Saran whereby and where under the claim of the petitioner for appointment on the post of class IV has been rejected on the ground they are not attached the document regarding three years work or three years enumeration. A copy of memo dated 13 June 2020 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-1 to this application. II. To further direct the respondent authority issued the appointment letters in favour of the petitioners for the class IV post as per direction of the department as well as Hon'ble court.
And/or any other appropriate relief(s) to the petitioners for which they may be found entitle under the fact and circumstances of the case.”
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the State of Bihar formulated a scheme to impart education to the students of 6-14 years, who were deprived from getting the formal education. In furtherance thereof, the State Govt. started non-formal education programme for giving non-formal education to the children of 6-14 years by creating different centers. The conduction of the aforesaid centre was done by the non-formal Instructors and non-formal Supervisors, both were working on the basis of stipend (maandey). Counsel submits that the State has subsequently started a formal process of appointment and the Instructors were appointed phase-wise from 1981. Earlier the non-formal Instructors were appointed by the Department of Education upto 1984 and, thereafter, a Board/Committee was constituted and the said Committee published the advertisement in daily newspaper and, thereafter, several Instructors were appointed. Counsel further submits that after 1984-85, the State Govt. changed the name of the Controlling Department by the Department of Adult and non-formal Education, which was entrusted to appoint the non-formal Instructors. Counsel submits that the petitioners were earlier appointed as the non-formal Instructors on the basis of stipend (maandey) after following due process of selection by the competent authority. Subsequently, the department of Education sent them for training and after completion of training course, they started discharging their duties for providing non-formal Education to the children of 6-14 years. For their workings, they got the experience certificates by the Project Officer/District Public Education Officer of the concerned District. The details of the petitioner and their workings and the copies of experience certificates of the petitioners are annexed herewith as Annexure-2 series. Counsel submits that the Department of Adult and non-formal Education after its constitution also appointed some other non-formal Instructors on the basis of regular pay scale and copies of the account payment details is annexed herewith as Annexure-3.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that in the year 2001, different projects were decided to be closed. The policy decision of the State Government was made, but no benefit was granted to the petitioners and series of matters were raised before this Hon’ble Court and series of Instructors were directed to be absorbed in the regular government service. The matter travelled upto Hon’ble Supreme Court of India and it was decided in favour of the Instructors with a specific direction and lastly, it has come that those who worked as Instructor continuously for three years shall be entitled to get the benefit. Counsel submits that the petitioners have worked for three years continuously, therefore, they are entitled for the benefit.
Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, submits that case of the petitioners has been checked twice and in pursuance of the direction, the Committee of the Saran District again examined the objections filed by the candidates including the petitioners and rejected the objection of 129 candidates and recommended the names of 13 candidates. The claim of the petitioners have been rejected again due to non-availability of evidence with respect to continuous working for three years and payment made to them, while working as Instructors in the Non-Formal Education programme. Counsel submits that the District Level Committee, Saran has specifically given findings that as per the documents available in the department, the petitioner no. 1 has been paid Rs. 1,170/-, petitioner no. 2 has been paid Rs. 1,170/- and the petitioner no. 3 has been paid Rs. 1,324/- and hence, the claim of working of the petitioners has not been proved. It is the specific stand of the State that as per the report of the District Level Committee, Saran, the petitioners do no fulfill the mandatory conditions of working three years as Instructors in Non-Formal Education programme. Therefore, counsel submits that there is no claim of the petitioners. Counsel further submits that the District Level Committee on the basis of experience, did not rely merely on the experience certificate submitted by the claimants, instead corroborate the same with the payment details available in the office of the respective claimants. Counsel also submits that the bank statement annexed with the writ petition does not show that the petitioners have worked continuously for three years as Instructor in the Non-Formal Education Programme, which is a condition precedent for consideration of regularization /appointment. Counsel further submits that with regard to the appointment of the Non-Formal Education, matter has already been tested upto the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in SLP (C) No. 32079 of 2015 and subsequently in Civil Review No. 68 of 2019, in which order has been passed.
As such, in the light of decision in the said Civil Review petition as well as the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, the chapter for the petitioners has now ended and in this view of the matter, this Court is of the view that no relief can be granted to the petitioners. Hence, this writ petition stands dismissed.