Sheel Nagu, J.
1. This civil appeal assails the Division Bench order of High Court of Judicature at Patna rendered in LPA No.669 of 2022, arising out of Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.14676 of 2022.
1.1 The Division Bench in LPA No.669 of 2022 has reversed the order of the Single Bench rendered in CWJ Case No.14676 of 2022 and directed the respondent herein to be reinstated with all consequential benefits including monetary, to be granted within four months.
2. The factual matrix involved herein are, for convenience, reproduced in tabular illustration chronologically: -
3. In the backdrop of aforesaid factual matrix, it is palpable that on two occasions when the case came up for assessing the legality and validity of the certificates issued by various institutes including that of Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta, the High Court indulged in self-assessment owing to want of assistance rendered by either of the parties. In the first instance, the exercise of self-assessment was undertaken while deciding LPA No.235 of 2004 judgment dated 30.03.2005 (vide Annexure P-16, page no.64 of Rejoinder of appellant-State of Bihar). The second time the self-assessment exercise was undertaken by the Court in the impugned order, which is evident from the above extracted para 4 of impugned order.
3.1 From the aforesaid discussion, it is obvious that in the absence of any assistance extended by the rival parties at both the stages of adjudication of LPA No.235 of 2004 and LPA No.244 of 2011, the High Court did not have cogent material to come to a conclusive finding as to whether the certificates issued by Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta were fake or not.
3.2 It is for this reason that the Apex Court in Seema Kumari & Ors. vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. ((2006) 12 SCC 215), set aside the observations and findings made by Jharkhand High Court in LPA No.235 of 2004, by expressing doubt as to the genuineness of the institutions including Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education.
3.3 We were inclined in this judgment to take a different course, but there is an aspect which glares in the face and is palpable enough to dissuade us from doing so. The respondent was appointed on 11.09.2007 as Trained Block Teacher, when he did not have the requisite and statutory qualification in terms of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006, in particular Rule 8(a), which for ready reference and convenience is reproduced below in toto:-
“Rule – 8. For appointment:
(a) Eligibility
For Block Teacher: -
(i) Should be a citizen of India and a resident of the state of Bihar.
(ii) Must have passed Higher Secondary or Intermediate or equivalent examination from a government recognized educational institution.
(iii) Two-year teacher training, diploma or certificate from a training institute recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) or Graduate in Elementary Education (B.L. Ed.) Or B. Ed or equivalent qualification.
Minimum two years certificate (C.P.Ed) or equivalent qualification for physical education teacher.
But under this rule, in the first employment, those candidates can also be employed who have passed matriculation or equivalent examination from a government recognized school and obtained two years of teacher training examination / B.Ed./2 years certificate of physical training (CP Ed) from a recognized training school or recognized college before the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.) Act came into force.”
3.4 From the aforesaid statutory 2006 Rules, the respondent at the time of his appointment (i.e. 11.09.2007) was though holding a certificate but the same was not recognized by the National Council for Teacher Education (N.C.T.E.). It is not disputed that the 2006 Rules were invoked when the respondent was appointed. It is also not disputed by the respondent that the certificate issued by Dr. B. C. Roy College of Education, Calcutta (Annexure P-1, at page No.31 of the SLP) was not recognized by N.C.T.E., for the obvious reason that the N.C.T.E. Act, 1995 had not come into being on the date of issuance of the said certificate which was issued as early as in January 1995.
3.5 The N.C.T.E. Act came into force from 01.07.1995 which impelled the State of Bihar to frame the 2006 Rules stipulating that diploma/certificate ought to have been issued by a training institute recognized by N.C.T.E.
3.6 Thus, on the date of appointment as Trained Block Teacher i.e., 11.09.2007, respondent was not eligible as per 2006 Rules, for not having obtained certificate from an institute recognized by N.C.T.E.
4. A bare perusal of the impugned order of Division Bench reveals that the Division Bench fell into error by holding that N.C.T.E. Act had no application to the case of respondent since the N.C.T.E. norms would only be applicable prospectively w.e.f. 01.07.1995 and not prior thereto.
4.1 This view taken in the impugned order is misplaced, inasmuch as, the eligibility of a candidate for appointment to any public office is seen on the last date of submission of application forms or at best latest by the date of appointment, which clearly stipulated that the same is being offered to respondent in terms of Bihar Panchayat Elementary Teacher (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2006. It goes without saying that as mentioned above, the eligibility of becoming a Trained Block Teacher was diploma/certificate from an institute recognized by N.C.T.E., which the respondent at the relevant point of time did not possess.
4.2 Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the candidature of respondent could not have been considered as eligible under the 2006 Rules at the time of his appointment in 2007. Having held so, we feel that the impugned order of Division Bench rendered in LPA No.669 of 2022 by the High Court of Judicature at Patna deserves to be and is accordingly set aside.
5. Consequently, the present Civil Appeal No.13079 of 2026 filed by the State of Bihar stands allowed and the LPA No.669 of 2022 of respondent stands dismissed.
