IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.6874 of 2004 GHULAM ABU ASIM Versus BIHAR VIDYALAYA SEVA BOARD &OR ----------- 8. 14.07.2008 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the State. The petitioner came to this Court originally seeking mandamus for grant of approval of his appointment as Assistant teacher in the subject of „Urdu‟ in a Government recognized minority School i.e. Eraqui Urdu Girls High School, Ansarnagar, Nawadah as also for arrears of salary due since July, 1999. During the pendency of the writ application, the Respondent-Commission has refused to grant approval by its letter dated 19.4.2006 and in pursuance of which the School in question has terminated the services of the petitioner by an order dated 3.5.2006. Subsequently, the School in question on 15.5.2006 has sent a fresh proposal to reconsider the grant of approval of the appointment of the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was originally appointed on 20.1.1986 as Assistant teacher in Urdu in pursuance of an advertisement and open selection. In view of the fact that the petitioner did not hold B.Ed. qualification, under a Government instruction dated 21.12.1982 the petitioner was appointed on a monthly salary of Rs. 500/- only. He acquired the qualification of B.Ed. subsequently when he was granted regular scale with other consequential benefits available to him subsequently only in terms of the aforesaid Government circular. The petitioner also holds double - 2 - M.A. qualification in Urdu and in Persian. That the petitioner was appointed as Assistant teacher for the subject „Urdu‟ when he was also required to impart education in History additionally. The Respondent- authorities insist that the petitioner was appointed as a History teacher for which he does not hold qualification and, therefore, the refusal to grant approval to the appointment. A counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of Respondent no. 1. The Respondent insists on the illegality in the appointment of the petitioner without having trained qualifications but refuses to answer the Government circular dated 21.12.1982. That puts one aspect of the matter at rest against the respondents. The institution in question is a Muslim minority institution. The institution states that it has appointed the petitioner as an Urdu teacher, to additionally teach History. At this stage, the qualifications of the petitioner as urged above are also to be taken note of. Interestingly, while the institution, which made the appointment, says that the petitioner was appointed on the post of Urdu teacher, the Respondent no. 1-Commission considers it prudent to suggest that the appointment was on the post of History teacher and that the institution which made the appointment is making statements “as an after thought”. This Court finds the pleadings of the Respondents to be thoroughly inadequate. The institution which made the appointment is the only competent authority to state on what subject the appointment is made which is corroborated by Annexure-4 dated 6.10.1991. The - 3 - genuineness and correctness of which is not denied in the counter affidavit. For the Commission to urge that the petitioner was appointed as a teacher in the subject of History to impart education in Urdu is only an attempt of the Commission to unnecessarily confuse the matter. Academic qualifications of the petitioner in the subject of Urdu on which the institution in question states to have appointed him is a matter which appears to have no relevance for the Commission, acting like a Bull and China shop that what it says is correct rather what the institution says. This Court finds it difficult to sustain the order of the Commission dated 19.4.2006, which is, accordingly, quashed. As a consequence the communication of the institution dated 3.5.2006 loses its validity. That the petitioner is imparting education as a teacher since 1986 is an issue which simply cannot be ignored. The Commission is now directed to consider the case of the petitioner in light of the request of the institution dated 15.5.2006 and pass necessary orders in accordance with law when the claim of the petitioner for arrears of salary shall also be considered appropriately by the Respondents. Let such decision and all consequential action be taken positively within a period of three months from the date of receipt and/or production of a copy of this order. This application is disposed off. AKS/ (Navin Sinha, J.) - 4 -