Suresh Kumar Pandey vs State Of Bihar Through Its Secretary And Ors

The petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.10.2019 passed by the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, Patna (in short the Board),

whereby the approval of the appointment of the petitioner as Vedacharya in Ayodhya Shiv Narayan Sanskrit High School, Bhitgharwa Math, East

Champaran has been cancelled.

One Braj Bhushan Kumar Singh (respondent No. 5), who was absolutely unconnected with the affairs of the school in question, approached this

Court vide C.W.J.C. No. 8577 of 2018, alleging that the petitioner has obtained appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in such school at a

tender age of 15 years, but the complaint regarding this was not being considered by the Board.

A Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.01.2019, passed in aforementioned writ petition, directed the petitioner in that case/Braj Bhushan Kumar

Singh (respondent No. 5) to file a fresh representation before the Secretary of the Bihar Sanskrit Shiksha Board, who, in turn, was directed to dispose

off such representation by a reasoned and speaking order within a stipulated period of time.

Pursuant to aforesaid order, an enquiry was conducted in which the petitioner and respondent No. 5 were heard and the documents filed on behalf

of the parties were were also perused. The Secretary of the Board found that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the school on his

completing only 15 years and 1 month of age, which was not possible as nobody could have, in that tender age, obtained the degree of Vedacharya.

Even though, the Secretary of the Board took note of the fact that the petitioner has served successfully and efficiently as teacher in the aforesaid

school for 37 years, a decision was taken to cancel his approval as a teacher in the school.

Bet it noted that when the petitioner was appointed, the school in question was being run by a Private Managing Committee and the school in

question fell in the category of 429 such schools which was recognized by the Board.

Mr. Gajendra Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that in the first instance a, private person, nay, an interloper ought not to have been

heard on such complaint, which prima facie appears to be motivated. Nonetheless, once a complaint was acted upon and a decision had been taken

with respect to the service of the petitioner, the fact that the petitioner has served for 37 years in the school as teacher without any complaint from

any quarter should have been taken into account and a proper disciplinary proceeding or enquiry ought to have been initiated before cancelling the

confirmation of the service of the petitioner. It has further been argued that at the time when the petitioner was appointed, there were no prevalent

rules and such appointments were made only on the satisfaction regarding the possession of degree for being appointed. There is no false

representation on the part of the petitioner. These aspects have been completely ignored by the Board while passing the order impugned cancelling the

approval of petitioner’s appointment.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has, therefore, submitted that if the maximum number of years that a person could serve as a teacher, which

could be calculated from the minimum age in which a person could enter into service and his date of superannuation, the petitioner ought to have been

given the aforesaid concession in view of his having rendered service for 37 years. The Board ought to have taken into account that there were no

regulation for not appointing a person as teacher having requisite qualification but below a particular age.

On the aforesaid grounds, the correctness of the decision of the Board has been questioned by the petitioner.

This Court, on perusal of the entire averments made in the writ petition and the submissions raised on behalf of the petitioner, finds that there is no

dispute with respect to petitioner having entered the service at the age of 15 years, which is not legally permissible. Nonetheless, the other aspects

which have been noted above ought to have gone into consideration of the Board before a final order was passed.

The petitioner also has a forum of appeal before the Special Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna against the order passed

by the Board. In the event of such an appeal being filed by the petitioner within a period of three weeks from today, detailing his grievances, the

appellate authority shall look into the entire aspect of the matter in a holistic manner and shall pass a reasoned order in accordance with law within a

further period of six weeks. The aspects which have been highlighted hereinabove shall also be considered by the Special Secretary, Department of

Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna while disposing of the appeal of the petitioner.

Needless to state that any order by the Special Secretary, Department of Education, Govt. of Bihar, Patna shall be passed only after hearing the

necessary parties.

With the aforesaid observation/direction, the writ petition stands disposed off.