Teacher appointed as per qualification is to receive salary if passed TET examination: Patna High Court
Those intending to be appointed as teachers in Class VI to VIII must minimum complete Paper I, whilst those wishing to be appointed in Class I to V must minimum pass Paper II. Any candidate who passes both Papers I and II will be eligible to apply for teaching positions in all classes is upheld by the High Court of Patna through the learned bench led by HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR in the case of Chandani Kumari Vs. The State of Bihar (Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.9786 of 2019) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has requested the Court to order the respondents to accept her certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test (in short the TET) as valid and genuine because it was issued by the Bihar School Examination Board, Patna (in short the BSEB) after the petitioner passed the TET Examination, 2011 successfully, and also to order the respondents to pay the arrears of salary owed to her since November, 2018 – to date because it has not been paid. The petitioner stands accused of obtaining employment on the basis of a forged and fabricated TET certificate. The basis to this case is that it was discovered in one of the Public Interest Litigation (PIL) cases that unqualified individuals with forged degrees had obtained employment. An investigation is conducted on the Court’s directions with the goal of locating and identifying teachers who had obtained such positions using fake academic qualifications. As a result, an F.I.R. was filed, in which the petitioner was also named as one of the defendants. The complaint against the petitioner is restricted to the fact that she is stated to have passed Paper-II of the TET test, despite the fact that she was proved to have failed Paper-I. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that as she failed Paper-I, it was assumed that her passing in Paper-II was questionable, implying that the certificate was forged; for the reason that anyone who has failed the first paper will not be permitted to appear in the second paper, and even if he or she is permitted to appear in the second paper, the result will not be published unless both papers have been cleared. The petitioner’s counsel has drawn this Court’s attention to the entire framework of the TET examination, which states that persons intending to be appointed as teachers in Class VI to VIII must pass only Paper I, whereas those who want to be appointed in Class I to V must pass both Papers. This entails that if the petitioner passes Paper-II, she is qualified to be appointed as a teacher in classes VI to VIII. During the course of the investigation, even when the F.I.R. was lodged no concrete evidence could be gathered against the petitioner to suggest or substantiate the petitioner’s charge of having obtained employment on a forged degree. In reviewing the investigation records, it became apparent that it was discovered that two of the officers signed the reports mechanically without verifying the TET examination scheme. An inquiry was established after the petitioner and filed a complaint with the Director General of Police about the erroneous investigation and before the inquiry committee, the negligence on the part of police officials were acknowledged as to signing such reports mechanically without verifying the accuracy of the allegation or the petitioner’s defence. Through way of counter affidavit, Mr. Anjani Kumar, the learned Senior Advocate representing the Vigilance Department, has informed the Court that the Vigilance Officer’s conduct was found to be absolutely unpardonable, and that he was subjected to a departmental proceeding as well as a punishment of one black mark. Further, the BSEB also admits that the petitioner is indicated to have passed the Paper-II examination in their database, making her qualified to be recruited as a teacher. Thus, in the current litigation, i.e., the petitioner’s salary being held in dilemma since November 2018 under the pretext of an ongoing inquiry into her, the concerned respondent shall investigate the matter and issue necessary orders, including resuming the petitioner’s salary, which has been suspended since November 2018 only due to the ongoing investigation, and the decision of the concerned respondent shall be subject to the final outcome of the case investigation. If the petitioner is found guilty, the necessary punishments will be imposed. Additionally, the police have also been ordered to complete the inquiry as soon as possible. Click here to read the judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.97819 Chandani Kumari female aged about 33 years Daughter of Sri Shambhu Jha Resident of Village Jhakhara P.O. Kadarchak P.S. Shambhuganj District Banka ... Petitioner s The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary Education Department Government of Bihar Patna The Principal Secretary Education Department Government of Bihar Bihar Patna The Director Primary Education Education Department Government of The District Magistrate cum Collector Munger District Munger The District Education Officer Munger District Munger The District Programme Officer Establishment Munger District Munger The Block Development Officer cum Secretary Block Teacher Employment Unit Tarapur Block Tarapur District Munger The Block Education Officer Tarapur District Munger The Bihar School Examination Board Patna through its Secretary 10. The Chairman the Bihar School Examination Board Patna 11. The Secretary the Bihar School Examination Board Patna 12. The Vigilance Department through the Additional Chief Secretary Department of Vigilance Patna Bihar ... Respondent s For the Petitioner s Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra Adv For the State Mr. Ran Vijay Prasad Singh AC to GA XII For the Vigilance Mr. Anjani Kumar Sr. Adv Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde Adv Mr. Arvind Kumar Adv Patna High Court CWJC No.97819 dt.03 01 2022 For the BSEB Mr. Girijesh Kumar Adv CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Date : 03 01 2022 Heard Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra the learned Advocate for the petitioner and Mr. Ran Vijay Prasad Singh the learned AC to GA XII for the State. The Vigilance Department is represented by Mr. Anjani Kumar the learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde and Mr. Arvind Kumar the learned Advocates. Mr. Girijesh Kumar the learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the Bihar School Examination Board 2. The petitioner has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to consider her certificate of Teacher Eligibility Test as valid and genuine as the same has been issued by the Bihar School Examination Board Patna after the petitioner had passed the TET Examination 2011 successfully and further for a direction to the respondents to pay the arrears of the salary since November 2018 till date as the same is not being paid to her on the pretext of Patna High Court CWJC No.97819 dt.03 01 2022 an investigation pending against her 3. The charge against the petitioner is of having obtained employment on the basis of forged and fabricated TET certificate 4. The background to this litigation is that in one of the Public Interest Litigationcases it was found that undeserving persons with forged degrees had obtained employment. Under the orders of this Court an enquiry was instituted with the mandate to find out and identify such teachers who had used the forged academic qualification degrees for obtaining such appointment. Consequently an F.I.R. was lodged in which the petitioner has also been arraigned as one of the accused person 5. So far as the charge against the petitioner is concerned it is limited to the extent that she is said to have passed in Paper II of the TET examination even when she was shown to have failed in Paper I 6. It has been argued on behalf of the petitioner that because of her having failed in Paper I it was presumed that her passing in Paper II was anomalous and it Patna High Court CWJC No.97819 dt.03 01 2022 hinted at the certificate being forged for the reason that anybody who has failed in the first paper would not be permitted to appear in the second paper or even if he she is permitted to appear in the second paper the result would not be published unless both the papers are cleared 7. In order to dispel this confusion the counsel for the petitioner has drawn the attention of this Court to the entire scheme of the TET examination which inter alia provides that for persons desirous of being appointed as teachers for Class VI to VIII they are required to pass in Paper I only whereas aspirants for being appointed as teachers in Class I to V would be required to pass in Paper II. Any candidate passing in Paper I and Paper II both would have the eligibility to apply for teachers for all the classes. This necessarily implies that if the petitioner has passed in Paper II she is eligible to be appointed as teachers for Class VI to VIII 8. During the course of the enquiry conducted by the local police even when the F.I.R. was lodged by the Vigilance no definite material could be collected against the Patna High Court CWJC No.97819 dt.03 01 2022 petitioner to indicate or substantiate the charge of the petitioners having obtained employment on a forged degree However while going through the investigation reports it came to light that two of the officers one from the Vigilance Department and the other from the General Police Department were reckless in making investigations and had signed the reports in a mechanical manner without even verifying the scheme of the examination of the TET 9. On a complaint made by the petitioner and others before the Director General of Police with respect to such faulty investigation an enquiry was set up and before such enquiry committee the aforesaid two erring police officials admitted of having signed such reports mechanically without verifying the correctness of the allegation or of the defense of the petitioner 10. At that stage the Court found it expedient to issue notice the Vigilance Department to inform the Court about the action taken against such irresponsible investigators for their incompetence and mindlessness had caused immense damage to the petitioner and her likes Patna High Court CWJC No.97819 dt.03 01 2022 11. Mr. Anjani Kumar the learned Senior Advocate representing the Vigilance Department has intimated this Court by way of counter affidavit that the conduct of the Vigilance Officer was found to be absolutely unpardonable and therefore he was subjected to a departmental proceeding and has also been given a punishment of one black mark 12. The fact of the matter now is that the petitioner has passed in Paper II examination of the TET 13. The BSEB in its report has also admitted that in their data base the petitioner is shown to have passed in Paper II examination thereby making her eligible for being appointed as a teacher. The petitioner after her appointment had been serving in the school where she was 14. The present litigation has come up only on the stoppage of the salary of the petitioner since November 2018 till date on the pretext of the investigation against her being pending 15. In this fact scenario therefore this Court Patna High Court CWJC No.97819 dt.03 01 2022 deems it appropriate to direct that in case a representation is filed by the petitioner before the Director Primary Education Department of Education Govt. of Bihar Patna along with a copy of this order within a period of three weeks the concerned respondent shall look into the matter and shall pass necessary orders accordingly resuming the salary of the petitioner which has been stopped since November 2018 only on the ground of pendency of the investigating process The aforesaid decision of the concerned respondent shall but be subject to the final outcome of the investigation of the case. In case the petitioner is found to be guilty necessary consequences would follow. The police is also directed to conclude the investigation at the earliest With the aforesaid observation direction the writ petition stands disposed off. Ashutosh Kumar J Praveen II 