.M?L1'^^-' '^"s%£l'E51''-" IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION ( S ) No. ^) 3> Of 2011 BETWEEN 1. Kamlesh Patel S/o Shri Radheshyam Patel, aged about 25 years, occupation - service, Shiksha Kanni Grade 3, posted at Primaxy School Itwan , TahsU Masturi, R/o Village and Post Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). <^2. Amit Kateliha S/o Shri S.P. Kateliha, aged about 37 years, occupation - Service, Shiksha Kamu Grade 3, posted at Priniary School Mudpar (Khorsi) , TahsU Masturi, R/o Village and Post Masturi, District BUaspi-ir (CG). Chandrashekhar Tiwari S/o Shri Ranaakant Tiwari, aged about 25 years, occupation - service, Shiksha Kanni Grade 3, posted at Primary School Kataha, TahsU Masturi, R/o ViUage and Post Malhar, Tahsil Masturi, District Bilaspur (CG). Shyam Kartik Sharma S/o Shri Dinbandhu Shanna, aged about 33 years, occupation service, Shiksha Karmi Grade 3, posted at Priinary School Dehanpara Karra , TahsU Masturi, R/o ViUage and Post Belsari, Tahsil Takhatpur, District Bilaspur (CG). /5. Moti Singh Th'akur S/o Shri Kanwal Singh Thakur, aged about 32 years, occupation service, Shiksha Kanni Grade 3, posted at I>runary School Sonsari , Tahsil Masturi, R/o ViUage Sondhar Post Dharampura, Tahsil Mungeli, District Bilaspur (CG). 6. Kuldeep Singh Thakur S/o Shri Kanwal Singh Thakur, aged aboyt 32 years, occupation sendce, Shiksha Karmi Grade 3, posted at Primary School Gadhiyapara Sonsan , Tahsil Masturi, R/o ViUage Sondhar Post Dharainpura, Tahsil Miuigeli, Disttfct Bilaspur (CG). PETITIONERS -y. ^\ AND 1. The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Secretaiy, Panchayat and Rural Developiaent Department, Mantralay at D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipiu- (CG). 2. The Director, Panchayat, Chhattisgarh, Raipur, District Raipur (CG). /3. The Collector, Bflaspur, Distnct Bilasptir (CG). ^4. The Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, BUaspur (CG). ^5. The Chief Executive OfEicer, Janpad Panchayat, Masturi, Distdct Bilaspur (CG). ^6. The University Grant Coinxnission, represented by ^ ^*^ ^s Secretary, New Delhi, j8a<u»afc4-SA«^- J'^^i- fO^ ^^ r9- ^ >lw Ae^A^ ~. ^ ' "" y t-i-TT \^I. National Council for Teacher Education, through Meinber Secretary, 15-I.P. Estate, M.G. Marg , New n^ ^ l-'cu11- 8. National Council for Teacher Education, Northem Regional Conunittee, through Regional Director , Shanti Pafh, Tilak Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan). 9. Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad U.P-, through its Secretary, Bharat Bhawan, Matiyari Road, Chinhat, Faizabad Road, Lucknow, Uttar Pradesh. RESPONDENTS WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OP THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 1. PARTICULARS OF THE PETrriONERS: As stated in the cause titie above. 2. PARTICULARSOFTHERESPONDENTS: As stated in the cause title above. - •———--.... ..fSi'a\ mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRJT PETITION (S) No. 293 of2011 : Kamlesh Patel & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : The State of Chhattisgarh & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. A^nihotri^J, Present: Shri Awadh Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Deputy Advocate General forthe State/respondent No. 1 to 3. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 20th day of January, 2011) 1. By this petition, fhe petitioners, seek for the following reliefs: "1. This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue a. writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 5 to not to discontinue the petitioners from their services till the decision of the writ petitions'. (bearing number 2716 (MS)/1997 and 2384(MS)/1998 ofthe respondent No. 9 pending before fhe Hon'ble High Court of Allahabad, Bench Lucfcaow; 2. That this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to ordered that the appointments offhe petitioners shall be binding with the decision/judgment of the Hon'ble High Coiirt of Allahabad in writ petitions (bearing number 2716(MS)/1997 and 2384(MS)/1998); 3. Any other reliefwhich this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper may also be passed in favour of the petitioner together with cost of the petition." 2. The facts, in nutshell, as projected by the petitioners are that pursuant to fhe advertisement published by the Janpad Panchayat, Masturi for appointment on 359 posts ofShiksha Kaniii Grade III, the petitioners, having the requisite qualification, applied for fhe same wherein after passing the written examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh ^•^ f' ''Si'SiSBSri.. S h '•'saia^a j \} a ''%JfcS "-"SS'R® Professional Examination Board, the petitioners were appointed and given posting in various schools of the said Janpad Panchayat. Shri Tripathi further submits that some candidates who could not acquire appointment on account of various reasons, made false complaints against the petitioner No. 1, 5 and 6, wherein, the respondent No. 5, without conducting proper enquiry, vide order dated 18.02.2009 (Annexure P/10 to P/12 colly.), terminated their services. Being aggrieved, the said petitioners preferred an appeal before the Collector, Bilaspur which was allowed and the termination order was set aside. Thereafter, the respondent no. 5, in view of the said complaint, withheld the appointment of the petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4, thus, they preferred a writ petition before this Court which was registered as W.P.(S) No. 501/2009. The said petition was disposed of with a direction to the petitioners to make a representation before the authorities for redressal of their grievances. Accordingly, the petitioners made representations to the respondent No. 5 and the respondent No. 5, after seeking directions in relation to the consideration.oftheir representations in the light ofthe order passed in appeal case as well as by this Court, reappointed the petitioners in service. Immediately after re-joining their posts, the respondent No. 5 issued a memo dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure P/29) wherein the petitioners were directed to produce documents relating to affiliation ofthe Bharatiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow, (for short 'the Parislwd) with the National Council For Education & Training (for short 'the NCTE'), further, to clarify the position when the Parishad has been declared as forged institution by the University Grants Commission (for short 'the UGC') and fiirther, to produce any document showing recognition ofthe said institution with the UGC, within a period of 15 days. 3. Shri Tripathi, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that on receipt of the aforesaid memo dated 10.03.2010, they submitted their reply wherein it was mentioned that several cases with regard to recognition of the Parishad are pending consideration before the High Court ofAllahabad and its subordinate courts. The Allahabad High Court, Bench at Lucknow, has passed an interim order that till ^'p 'i?j? ^ .i? •y^y the disposal of the case, the Parishad shall carry on teachers trainmg programme. Thus, the petitioners herem may also be permitted to continue with their services till the disposal of the said cases. Shri Tripathi next contends that the respondent No. 5, after a period of 9 months, vide memo dated 07.01.2011 (Annexure P/33 to P/39 colly), which was delivered to the petitioners on 10.01.2011 at 5 p.m. directed the petitioners to submit and to clarify the status of the Parishad, as directed earlier vide its memo dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure P/29) till 13.01.2011, failingwhich the process of termination oftheir services shall be initiated. 4. Shri Tripathi further contends that the respondent No. 5, after keeping silent for a period of 9 months, have again directed the petitioners to submit the documents relating to affiliation and recognition of the Parishad which is unreasonable and unjustified. The Parishad has been protected by way of interim order passed by the High Court of Allahabad, thus, the respondent authorities should not insist on supply of documents, as aforestated. The petitioners have already submitted all fhe requisite documents before their appointment and only after verification of their documents, they were given appointment on the post of Shiksha Karmi Grade III. Thus, the respondent authorities camiot take a contrary stand and harass the petitioners by asking for the documents relating to the recognition and affiliation from the petitioners again and again. 5. On perusal ofthe memo dated 10.03.2010 (Annexure P/29), it is found that the petitioners were given 15 days time to produce the relevant documents, as stated above. Thereafiter, the petitioners, it appears could not supply a single document with regard to recognition and afHliation ofthe Parishad with the NCTE or the UGC. But, no action was taken by the respondent No. 5. Even, afiter a period of 9 months, by memo dated 7.01.2011, the same direction was given to the petitioners but the petitioners could not comply with the said order. Thus, it caimot be said that the petitioners were not afforded proper opportunity to put forward their cases. One condition of appointment was that if at any point of time, it is found that the documents submitted by the petitioners are forged or has been issued by any institution which is not duly recognized or affiliated to the NCTE. or the UGC., then the employer can take appropriate action against the employee who has submitted the degree/diploma certificate issued by the forged institution. 6. Further, fhe relief sought for in this petition is vague as no Court can direct the authorities for not discontinuing the services till disposal of any petition which is pending before another High Court. Even otherwise, no coercive action has been taken against the petitioners till date and it is only at the stage ofnotice. No decision has been taken on the reply filed by the petitioners to the earlier notice. Thus, this petition is premature as no cause of action has arisen to enable the petitioners to approach this Court. 7. In view of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is dismissed as being premature. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit