IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Letters Patent Appeal No.968 of 2011 In Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 14709 of 2010 With Interlocutory Application No. 5401 of 2011 In Letters Patent Appeal No.968 of 2011 ====================================================== Sunita Kumari Shrivastava, wife of Shri Dhananjay Kumar Shrivastava, Resident of Village & Post-Rooppur, Police Station-Bhabhua, District- Kaimur at Bhabhua at present posted as Block Teacher, Government Middle School, Rooppur, Bhabhua, District-Kaimur at Bhabhua. .... .... Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. The State of Bihar through the Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, Government of Bihar, Patna. 2. The Principal Secretary, Department of Human Resources Development, New Secretariat, Government of Bihar, Patna. 3. The Secretary, Department of Primary and Adult Education, Government of Bihar, New Secretariat, Patna. 4. The District Magistrate, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 5. The Member, District Teachers Employment Appellate Tribunal, Kaimur, District-Kaimur at Bhabhua. 6. The District Education Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 7. The District Superintendent of Education-cum-Sub-Divisional Education Officer, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 8. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bhabhua-2, Kaimur at Bhabhua. 9. The Block Education Officer, Babhua, Kaimur at Bhabhua. .... .... Respondents-Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant : Mr. Anjani Kumar Sinha No.1, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Madhuresh Prasad, G.P.-12 with Mr. Prabhat Ranjan, A.C. to G.P.-12 Patna High Court LPA No.968 of 2011 (6) dt.24-08-2011 2 / 5 2 ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIRENDRA PRASAD VERMA ORAL ORDER (Per: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE) 6. 24-08-2011 This Appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent is preferred by the writ petitioner against the judgment and order dated 22nd April 2011 passed by the learned single Judge in above C.W.J.C. No. 14709 of 2010. With the consent of the learned advocates the Appeal is heard and decided today. In 2005 the appellant was employed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra under the Gram Panchayat-Rooppur, P.S. and District-Bhabhua. At the time of employment the appellant possessed an Intermediate; a Bachelor’s degree in Arts and a training certificate issued by the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow. On the basis of the said qualifications the appellant had been selected and employed as a Panchayat Shiksha Mitra for a monthly honorarium of Rs.1500.00. Pursuant to the implementation of the Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Rules’), the appellant was absorbed in the service as Panchayat Shikshak by operation of Rule 20(iii) of the Rules. Since her absorption as Panchayat Shikshak the appellant demanded for pay sanctioned for a trained teacher. Pursuant to her demand it was held that the training certificate acquired by the appellant was not recognized as the Bhartiya Shiksha Parishad, Lucknow was not a recognized institute. The appellant, therefore, could not have been said to be a trained teacher nor could she have been given weightage for the Patna High Court LPA No.968 of 2011 (6) dt.24-08-2011 3 / 5 3 training certificate. Pursuant to the above finding the salary of the appellant has been withheld since November 2007. Feeling aggrieved, the appellant filed C.W.J.C. No. 12630 of 2008 under Article 226 of the Constitution. The said petition was allowed to be withdrawn by order dated 11th September 2009 with liberty to the appellant to approach the appellate authority constituted under the Rules. Pursuant to the said order the appellant approached the appellate authority in Appeal No. 189 of 2009. The appellate authority under its order dated 13th July 2010, held that the training certificate possessed by the appellant was not a valid qualification. The appellant was, therefore, not entitled to continue in service. Feeling aggrieved the appellant filed the above C.W.J.C. No. 14709 of 2010. The learned single Judge has dismissed the writ petition on the same ground. Therefore, the present Appeal. The Appeal is contested by the State Government. Counter affidavit has been filed. It is stated that the appellant had secured employment by producing a wrong and unauthorized certificate and that she was selected on the basis of the additional weightage as trained teacher which was illegal and malafide. Learned advocate Mr. Prabhat Ranjan has appeared for the State Government. In course of hearing he has submitted that paragraph 11 of the counter affidavit does not convey what State Government intended to convey. He admits that the appellant did not produce a false or wrong certificate but the certificate produced by her was from an institute which is not a recognized institute. The appellant, therefore, could not have been given weightage for the training certificate nor could she have been appointed on the basis of such training certificate. We are at loss, it is not the case of the State Government that the appellant had secured employment by Patna High Court LPA No.968 of 2011 (6) dt.24-08-2011 4 / 5 4 producing a false certificate or by misrepresentation. If the institute were not recognized, at the worst, the appellant could not have been given weightage for the additional qualification of training. It is not the case of the State Government that but for such weightage she could not have been selected as Panchayat Shikshak. Be that as it may, the question before us is not whether the appellant was rightly employed as Panchayat Shiksha Mitra or was rightly absorbed as Panchayat Shikshak by operation of Rule 20(iii) of the Rules. The only claim the appellant made in the writ petition was that her salary was illegally withheld since November 2007. It is now brought on record that since the decision on the writ petition the State Government has terminated the service of the appellant and she has been relieved from service on 21st July 2011. If so advised, the appellant may challenge the said order before the appropriate forum. The question before us is in respect of the unpaid salary. Indisputably, the appellant has served as Panchayat Shikshak since 1st July 2006 till 21st July 2011. In our opinion, so long as the appellant rendered service she is entitled to the honorarium/salary/wages on the principle of quid pro quo. For the aforesaid reason, we allow this Appeal. The impugned order dated 22nd April 2011 made by the learned single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 14709 of 2010 is set aside. C.W.J.C. No. 14709 of 2010 is allowed. We direct the respondent authorities to treat the appellant as the untrained teacher and to pay her salary/honorarium as untrained teacher from the date it was withheld till 21st July 2011 when she was relieved from service. The aforesaid arrears of salary/honorarium will be paid as early as possible but not beyond 31st October 2011. In the event, the Patna High Court LPA No.968 of 2011 (6) dt.24-08-2011 5 / 5 5 respondent State Government fails to pay the salary/wages/honorarium to the appellant as directed hereinabove the appellant will be entitled to interest over the amount of arrears of salary at the rate of 10 per cent per annum commencing from 1st November 2011 till the date of payment. We may clarify that we have not considered the legality of the defence that the appellant is not a trained teacher as the concerned institute is not a recognized institute. Nor we have considered the correctness or otherwise of the above referred order dated 21st July 2011. In the event, the appellant challenges the said order dated 21st July 2011, she will be at liberty to raise the issue whether or not she is a trained teacher. Such an issue, if raised, will be decided in accordance with law without being influenced by anything said in this order. The Interlocutory Application stands disposed of. The parties will bear their own cost. Pawan/- (R.M. Doshit, CJ) (Birendra Prasad Verma, J)