Bihar mulls appeal against HC order quashing appointments in training colleges

Bihar government is planning to go into appeal against the March 22 Patna High Court order quashing the appointment of 451 assistant professors in Bihar’s government teachers’ training colleges.

Bihar government is planning to go into appeal against the March 22 Patna High Court order quashing the appointment of 451 assistant professors in Bihar’s government teachers’ training colleges while hearing a bunch of petitions challenging the validity of June 2016 advertisement of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) on the basis that it was contrary to the statutory rules.

Last week, the Patna HC had quashed the appointments, directing the government and the BPSC to undertake fresh selection process in keeping with the National Council for Teachers’ Education (NCTE) regulation which is now in place. (HT File)

However, the government may move forward to implement another order against exclusion of ‘niyojit teachers’, appointed since 2006 through the panchayati raj system, from the appointment process and confining it only to regular teachers appointed prior to 2006 on the prescribed pay-scale.

“The government is seeking legal opinion on the matter. The appointments have already been made and the teachers are also drawing salary. After the vacancies were filled, admission of around 16000 students has also been made. The government is consulting legal experts to file LPA (Letter Patent Appeal), as it has not done anything wrong and followed court orders,” said director, mass education, Binodanand Jha.

He, however, said that with the number of regular teachers now dropping to less than 10% of the total strength, the government would certainly like to give opportunities to eligible ‘niyojit teachers’ in the appointment of lecturers for training colleges in keeping with the HC order.

Last week, the Patna HC had quashed the appointments, directing the government and the BPSC to undertake fresh selection process in keeping with the National Council for Teachers’ Education (NCTE) regulation which is now in place.

Hearing a bunch of petitions challenging exclusion of M.Ed in special education from the selection process, the bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay said that in the advertisement there was no specification that the persons with M.Ed. in special education/Special Visual Impairment/Mental Retardation shall not be eligible. The court also did not accept the counter affidavit of the department that the NCTE regulation was prospective in nature and the selection process started prior to it.

“It is well settled norm that exclusion cannot be inferred. Exclusion has to be specific. There is no such specific exclusion clause in the advertisement and there was no reason for the BPSC to act upon the dictate of the principal secretary, department of education. The BPSC never issued any corrigendum, either, indicating M.Ed in special education was ineligible,” he added in the order.

In another case, the HC also observed that as per the advertisement for appointment, the 50% of the vacancies were to be filled with teachers in government schools through limited competitive exams, not just regular teachers appointed on prescribed pay scale prior to 2006. The court said “the rule does not make distinction between the government teacher or the regular teacher or ‘niyojit’ teacher”.

The bench of Justice Anil Kumar Upadhyay also gave direction to the BPSC to reconsider the case of the petitioners and alike in the light of the rule and adopt corrective measures within period of 60 days. “Any other construction on the basis of the advertisement or any letter issued by the Principal Secretary, Education Department is contrary to the rule and is unsustainable,” it added.