State of Bihar and
Ors Vs. Krishna Paswan and ANR [2008] INSC 1735 (15 October 2008)
Judgment
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL No. 5519 OF 2002 The State
of Bihar & Ors. ..... Appellants Versus Krishna Paswan & Anr. .....
Respondents
Lokeshwar Singh
Panta, J.
1.
This
appeal arises out of judgment and order dated 27.06.2001 of the High Court of
Judicature at Patna in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1590/99 whereby and whereunder
the High Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the judgment of the 2 learned
Single Judge passed in CWJC No. 10448 of 1997 dated 09.02.1999.
2.
Facts,
in brief are as under:- In the year 1987, the respondents herein along with
others were appointed as Assistant Teachers by the District Superintendent of
Education, Gaya vide order contained in Memo No. 8158-8408 dated 25.6.1987. The
relevant terms and conditions contained in the said appointment letter were
that the Matric Trained Teachers would get higher pay scale of Rs.580-860/-
whereas the Matric Untrained Teachers would get lower scale of pay of Rs.
535-765/-. The respondents after appointment joined their respective posts and
were not paid salary. They, therefore, filed CWJC No. 2099 of 1992 before the
High Court of Judicature at Patna. The stand of the State of Bihar in their
counter affidavit before the High Court was that the respondents had failed to
submit their requisite educational qualification certificates which were
pre-requisite for valid appointment, as such they cannot be deemed to be in
service. The High Court disposed of the writ petition by directing the
respondents to file relevant educational 3 certificates and the State was also
directed to decide their claim. In pursuance of the order of the High Court,
the respondents-appointees produced the relevant testimonials but the State
Government insisted upon them to produce the certificates pertaining to their
training.
3.
The
affected appointees again approached the High Court by way of second writ
petition (being CWJC No. 12322 of 1993) which came to be rejected by order
dated 13.01.1995.
4.
Being
aggrieved, the respondents-untrained teachers filed Letters Patent Appeal No.
102/1995 which was decided by the Division Bench on January 27, 1997. The
operative directions contained in the said order read as under:-
"Admittedly, the appellants are not trained teachers. In this background,
according to this court, there is no question of production of training
certificate by the appellants. It is not in dispute that even untrained persons
could have been appointed as Assistant Teachers in the untrained scale of pay.
Further, it is not
the case of the respondents that they have terminated the services of the
appellants. In this background, according to this court, the respondents cannot
deny the 4 salary in favour of the appellants on the ground that the
appellants had produced the training certificate, if appointments of the
appellants have been made in the untrained scale of pay of Assistant Teachers.
Accordingly, the
respondents are directed to look into the appointment letters of the appellants
dated 25.6.1987. If the appellants have been appointed as untrained Assistant
Teachers, without asking the appellants to produce the training certificates,
the respondents will pay untrained scale of pay in favour of the appellants for
the period they have actually performed their duty. The decision is to be taken
and admitted dues are to be paid in favour of the appellants, within a period
of four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this
order."
The above decision
attained finality.
5.
In
compliance of the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No. 102/1995, the
District Superintendent of Education, Gaya, held a meeting of District
Establishment Committee on 08.06.1997 and in the said meeting it was decided
that the services of the respondents shall be terminated from the date of
appointment as they had no training. As a result of the decision of the
District Establishment Committee, the District 5 Superintendent of Education
by Memo No. 2099 dated 25.06.1997 terminated the services of the respondents.
6.
Feeling
aggrieved, the respondents-untrained teachers filed one more CWJC No. 10448 of
1997 before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. The learned Single Judge
disposed of the said writ petition on 09.02.1999 at the admission stage itself
with a direction to the State to pass an appropriate order about the claim of
the respondents-untrained teachers for payment of their salary in the untrained
scale of pay in the light of the findings recorded by the Division Bench in LPA
No.
102/1995 and will
pass such order within a period of three months from the date of service of the
copy of the said order.
7.
Aggrieved
by the order of the learned Single Judge, the State preferred LPA No. 1590 of
1999 which was dismissed by the High Court vide order dated 27.06.2001 and the
order reads as under:- "The question involved in this appeal is as to
whether the respondents were appointed as trained teachers or untrained
teachers. We did ask the counsel for the State to produce a copy of the
advertisement but he has not 6 been able to produce the same. On the other
hand, he stated that no advertisement was made for the said appointment.
From perusal of the
office order whereby large number of teachers were appointed a copy of which
has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the application, it is evident that direction
was given to appoint trained teachers and in case of non-availability of
trained teacher, untrained teachers may be appointed. In that view of the matter,
the respondents-untrained teachers were appointed as untrained teachers. Thus,
it cannot be said that they got appointment by practising fraud or making
misrepresentation.
In our view, there
was no case of fraud or misrepresentation on the part of the respondents who
were appointed in the year 1987 and continued on the said post, no case for
termination of their services is made out and learned Single Judge rightly
allowed the writ application filed by them challenging the termination order.
In the result, the
appeal is dismissed."
8.
Now,
the State of Bihar by special leave has filed this appeal before this Court
challenging the correctness and validity of the impugned order of the High
Court dated 27.06.2001.
9.
We
have heard the learned counsel for the parties. The learned counsel for the
State contended that the High Court fell into an error in holding that the
respondents have not committed any fraud and misrepresentation of facts as
alleged against them. According to the learned counsel, after holding an
inquiry into the appointments of the respondents, it was found that the
respondents had appeared in the interview as Matric-Trained Teachers and
obtained the appointment against the said posts, whereas they have not
undergone any training and as such they made false representation and got
appointments by misrepresentation.
10.
Per
contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents-untrained teachers
contended that the respondents have applied against the posts of untrained
teachers and were duly appointed as Matric Untrained Teachers, due to
non-availability of trained teachers. He contended that the judgment and order
of the learned Single Judge confirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court
do 8 not suffer from any infirmity or perversity warranting interference in
this appeal.
11.
It
is not in dispute that at the time of appointment of the respondents, they had
produced the relevant educational certificates. It is also not in dispute that
they have not undergone the training of teachers and they applied for the posts
of Assistant Teachers in the category of Matric Untrained Teachers having
qualified Matric examination. It is also not in dispute that the State
Government, in the absence of availability of trained teachers, appointed the
untrained teachers.
12.
In
the factual situation narrated hereinabove, it was the specific case of the
respondents before the High Court that they were appointed as Matric Untrained
Teachers by the competent authority after following the prevalent and
established procedures and they have secured the appointment as Matric
Untrained Teachers and not as Matric Trained Teachers as alleged by the State
Government. In 9 counter affidavit filed by the respondents before this Court,
they have categorically stated that they have never applied for the posts of
trained teachers nor supplied any documents of training nor they, at any point
of time, have undergone training. They have never been paid salary of trained
teachers. The record shows that on the date of interview conducted by the
District Education Establishment Committee in its meeting held on 01.05.1987,
the Matric Trained Teachers were appointed against the posts of Matric Trained
Assistant Teachers and the respondents were appointed as Matric Untrained
Assistant Teachers in two different pay scales meaning thereby that Matric
Trained Assistant Teachers were given higher pay scale as compared to Matric
Untrained Assistant Teachers like the respondents.
The respondents have
filed the requisite certificates regarding their educational qualifications
having qualified matriculation examination and thereby they were qualified to
be appointed as Assistant Untrained Teachers without undergoing training.
13.
In
this view of the matter, the order of termination of the services of the
respondents has been rightly held to be bad in law by the High Court.
Appellants have failed to prove that the respondents at any point of time got
appointments as Matric Trained Teachers by practicing fraud or
misrepresentation. Thus, the contentions of the learned counsel for the
appellants do not merit acceptance.
14.
In
the result, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. We order accordingly. We
direct the appellants to reinstate the respondents against the posts of Matric
Untrained Assistant Teachers, but on the facts and circumstances, the
respondents will not be entitled for salary of past period when they were out
of job. Compliance within three months. Parties are left to bear their own
costs.
........................................J.
(R.V. Raveendran)
........................................J.
(Lokeshwar Singh Panta)
New
Delhi,
October
15, 2008.
Back
Pages: 1 2