IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.16325 of 2008 Kumari Meena Prasad @ Meena Prasad, wife of Shyam Babu Prasad, Resident of Mohalla- Sukala Gali Shivganj, P.S.-Arrah Town, District-Bhojpur at Arrah ………Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Additional Secretary, Primary, Secondary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, Patna. 4. The Regional Deputy Director, Education, Patna Region, Government of Bihar, Patna. 5. The District Magistrate, Bhojpur at Arrah. 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Executive Officer, Zila Parisahd, Bhojpur at Arrah. 7. The District Education Officer, Bhojpur at Arrah, 8. The Head Master, Harbans High School, Chandi, District- Bhojpur & 9. The Regional Director, NCTE, Bhubneshwar (Orissa) ----------- For the petitioner : Mr. Ram Subhas Singh, Advocate. For the State : Mr. Ranjan Kumar, A.C. to AAG 9 For the NCTE : Mr. S. N. Pathak, Advocate. ---------- 4/ 06.04.2009 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned counsel for the State and learned counsel for the NCTE. The petitioner acquired the qualification of B.Ed. from Millia Fakhruddin Ali Ahmad B.Ed. Research Training College, Rambagh, Purnia, in the session 1990-91. The examination was held in the year 1993 and the result was published in 1995. The Training College is recognized by the State Government and is affiliated to the B.N. Mandal University, Madhepura. The petitioner applied and was appointed as a Teacher on contract basis under the Bihar Zila Parishad High and Higher Secondary Teacher Appointment and Service Conditions Rule, 2006, - 2 - when she joined on 1.12.2006. After she had been appointed and started discharging duties, the issue of the validity of her qualifications, which should have engaged the attention of the respondents before appointment, was sought to be raised by them. A show cause notice was issued to her on 4.7.2007 by the District Education Officer, Bhojpur, stating that the institution from which she obtained her qualification did not have recognition during the period when she attended the course. The petitioner replied to the same on 10.7.2007 stating that she had completed her course in the year 1990-91. That any order of subsequent cancellation of the recognition of the institution could not be with retrospective effect when she relied on nine enclosures to her reply to the show cause including certain orders of this Court. Notwithstanding the same, a fresh show cause was issued by the District Superintendent of Education on 13.9.2007 that she had not produced any evidence that the institution was recognized by the National Council of Teacher Education. This was a fresh ground urged by the respondents after her reply to the show-cause dated 10.7.2007. The petitioner again filed her reply on 3.10.2007 stating that National Council of Teacher Education Act came into force with effect from 17.8.1995, whereas, she had completed her course in the year 1990-91 and the result was published on 10.7.1995. Learned counsel submits that the State Government has issued an order on 7.5.2005 at Annexure-7 that the recognition of the institution from which the petitioner acquired her qualification has been cancelled on 12.7.2002 with effect from Session 1996-97 issued under - 3 - the signature of the Joint Secretary, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna. He further relies on another order dated 7.7.2005 of the Director, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar, Patna, clarifying this aspect to submit that the petitioner’s case is clearly covered by the same under the exception made. Submission, therefore, is that the impugned order dated 17.9.2008 of the Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chief Executive Officer, Bhojpur Zila Parishad, Ara, virtually questions the orders of the Joint Secretary and the Director, Secondary Education, Department of Human Resources, Govt. of Bihar. Despite two adjournments, no counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. The writ petition raises no legal issue for adjudication by this Court. The only issue is of interpretation of certain government circulars. The cause of action is a subordinate government official refusing to obey the directions of his superior officials as if he had the authority to question their orders creating administrative anarchy. This court would have expected that after the writ application was filed, the respondent no.6 would have examined the matter appropriately but unfortunately, he persisted in contesting the writ petition. This court holds that in terms of the government orders dated 7.5.2005 and 7.7.2005 at Annexure- 7 and 8 respectively, the order of the respondent no.6 dated 17.9.2008 virtually questioning the same is not sustainable in law which is, accordingly, set aside. The - 4 - petitioner is held entitled to all consequential benefits which should be complied with within a maximum period of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. This court directs the respondent no.2 to examine the issue himself what are the circumstances under which a subordinate government official-respondent no.6 refused to follow the administrative instructions of the government issued by the higher officials as noticed above and persisted in contesting the present litigation before this court. This court expects respondent no.2 to consider the matter appropriately on the administrative side and file an affidavit of compliance before this Court within a maximum period of twelve weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order. The writ petition is allowed. JA/- (Navin Sinha, J.)