IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA --- LPA No.360 of 2009 --- Brajesh Kumar Singh s/o late Hari Shankar Singh, r/o village – Babhangama, P.O. Pahsara, P.S. –Naokothi, District – Begusarai ……. ………. Appellant/Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Bihar 2. The Principal Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, Govt. of Bihar, Patna 3. The Director, Primary Education, Bihar 4. The District Magistrate, Begusarai 5. The Divisional Commissioner, Tirhut Division at Muzaffarpur 6. The Deputy Development Commissioner-cum-Chairman, District Education Establishment Committee, Begusarai 7. The District Superintendent of Education, Begusarai 8. The Block Development Officer, Chhaurahi, Begusarai 9. The Block Education Extension Officer, Chhaurahi, Begusarai 10. The Block Development Officer, Birpur, Begusarai 11. The Education Extension Officer, Birpur, Begusarai 12. The Block Development Officer, Garhpura, Begusarai 13. The Block Development Extension Officer, Garhpura, Begusarai 14. The Block Development Officer, Naokothi, Begusarai 15. The Block Education Extension Officer, Naokothi, Begusarai 16. The Block Development Officer, Cheriya Bariarpur, Begusarai 17. The Block Education Extension Officer, Cheriya Bariarpur, Begusarai 18. The Block Development Officer, Matihani, Begusarai 19. The Block Education Extension Officer, Matihani, Begusarai 20. The Block Development Officer, Balia, Begusarai 21. The Block Education Extension Officer, Balia, Begusarai 22. The Block Development Officer, Bhagwanpur, Begusarai 23. The Block Education Extension Officer, Bhagwanpur, Begusarai 2 24. The Block Development Officer, Barauni, Begusarai 25. The Block Education Extension Officer, Barauni, Begusarai 26. The Block Development Officer, Dandari, Begusarai 27. The Block Education Extension Officer, Dandari, Begusarai 28. The Block Development Officer, Begusarai, District – Begusarai 29. The Block Education Extension Officer, Begusarai, District – Begusarai 30. The Block Development Officer, Khodawandpur, Begusarai 31. The Block Education Extension Officer, Khodawandpur, Begusarai 32. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Maheshwara, Begusarai 33. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Maheshwara, Begusarai 34. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Dakarpur, Begusarai 35. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Dakarpur, Begusarai 36. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Pahsara East, Begusarai 37. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Pahsara East, Begusarai 38. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Pahsara West, Begusarai 39. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Pahsara West, Begusarai 40. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mahiya Tole, Begusarai 41. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Mahiya Tole, Begusarai 42. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bank, Begusarai 43. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Bank District – Begusarai 44. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj Katarmala Sought, Begusarai 45. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj Katarmala Sought, Begusarai 46. The Mukhiya, Gram Panchayat Raj, Panhas, Begusarai 47. The Panchayat Secretary, Gram Panchayat Raj, Panhas, Begusarai 48. The Director, Secondary Education, Bihar, Patna ----------- 3 For the appellant: Mr.Umesh Kumar Mishra, Advocate For the respondents: Mr.Rajesh Kumar Singh, AC to AAG II 8 27/8/2009 Heard learned counsel for the parties. The appellant/petitioner filed a writ petition against his non-selection on the post of Panchayat Shikshak/Parkhand Shikshak. His apprehension was that his training certificate from National Urdu Primary Teacher Education College, Madhubani has not been given due recognition by the respondents under some confusion. The writ petition was dismissed by the order under appeal dated 3rd February, 2009, by holding summarily that the Government of Bihar was the competent authority in matter of grant of recognition to degrees of trainees and the court would not like to interfere. During the pendency of this appeal the respondent authority of the State of Bihar has filed counter affidavit and taken the stand that appellant’s degree of teacher’s training is not under dispute because he passed the Teacher’s Training Course for the Sessions 1987-89, when the Training College in question was having proper recognition. It is said that according to earlier judgment of this court, the said college had valid recognition of training 4 courses till the Sessions 1991-93. That takes care of the petitioner’s wrong apprehension. However, counter affidavit has disclosed that petitioner’s name could not be considered on merits because he had not supplied marksheet of matriculation examination which was necessary for preparation of the merit list. For that purpose, learned counsel for the State has shown us relevant provision of the Appointment Rules of 2006, which have been annexed with the counter affidavit as Annexure –B. He has also placed reliance upon some internal instructions as to how the marks are to be computed for the purpose of preparation of merit list contained in Annexure –A which relates to appointment of teachers, 2008. From the provision in the rules, it is clear that the petitioner/appellant has the necessary qualification because he had passed teacher’s training examination prior to July, 1995, when the National Council for Teachers Education was created through an Act. At that time the Training College was recognized. The petitioner/appellant was matriculate as well as had passed intermediate examination. 5 The only difficulty in the way of the appellant/petitioner was that his matriculation marks were not made available to the respondents at the relevant time and, therefore, his marks could not be computed for the purpose of preparation of the merit list as per instructions contained in Annexure –A. Those similarly situated candidates who had provided their matriculation marksheet were considered on merits but the appellant was left out on that count only. We find that the internal decision contained in Annexure –A was not made public or brought to the notice of all the candidates and hence under the Rules of 2006, the appellant/petitioner was justified in supplying his marksheet of intermediate examination. The respondent authorities, in the fact of the case, were required to give an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant to furnish his matriculation marks so that his case may also be considered along with other similarly situated eligible candidates. Since that was not done by the respondents, the petitioner/appellant cannot be made to suffer any injury for no fault of his. 6 Hence, the appeal is allowed to the extent that the appellant’s candidature is directed to be re-considered by all the concerned respondents. The appellant has already supplied his matriculation marksheet and if the authority so wants he shall re-supply matriculation certificate and marksheet so that his case may also be considered in accordance with rules and instructions afresh. This should be done as expeditiously as possible preferably within two months. It is made clear that we have passed this order on the basis of a submission on behalf of the appellant that so far recruitments have not been finally made and posts are still vacant. In case posts have already been filled up then in that event the appellant’s candidature shall be considered in respect of any vacancy which may be found existing for the future transaction of recruitment because the appellant cannot be made to suffer for the mistake of the respondents. Neyaz/ (P.K.Misra, CJ.) (Shiva Kirti Singh, J.)