Harish Chandra Shrivastava vs The State of Bihar and Others

14 March 1978 to 10 May 1979 – The State by the Act of 1985 took over the management of the Private Medical Colleges and upon the recommendation of the Screening Committee constituted by it, the appellants, amongst others were absorbed in service – Upon the batch of writ petition, High Court directed constitution of fresh Screening Committee, upon the recommendation of which the services of appellants were terminated – Appellants filed writ petitions before High Court against the termination, as result of which Review Screening Committee was constituted pursuant to the order of the High Court – Review Screening Committee recommended that the appellants, amongst others, were found unfit for absorption – Appellants approached High Court against the recommendation and the same was dismissed upon the grounds that the appellants though had academic qualification but lacked three years post qualification teaching experience from a recognised Ayurvedic College as required by the Statute – Hence instant appeal – Held: The very premise on which the High Court proceeded to examine the eligibility of the teachers as on the date they initially entered into service in the year 1978-1979 and arrived to the conclusion that the teachers who were not holding the postqualification teaching experience of three years from recognized Ayurvedic college as referred to under the Statute would not be eligible for absorption is a clear misconception of law – State was not able to justify as to how the person on the basis of academic qualification, if not being permitted to teach, may acquire post qualification teaching experience as referred to under the Statute of the Bihar University Act or by CCIM Act, 1970 for entry into service – Therefore, the academic qualification and post qualification teaching experience of three years at the entry level post i.e. Lecturer in the instant case, are two different ends which are not possible to meet – It is a proven fact that the appellants were holding required academic qualification and teaching experience of more than three year as on cut-off date prescribed by the Notification, the contention of State that the appellants lacked three years post qualification teaching experience at the time of their initial appointment as per the mandate of Act of 1985, is unsustainable.

Allowing the appeals, the Court

HELD: 1. The very premise on which the High Court has proceeded to examine the eligibility of the teachers as on the date they initially entered into service in the year 1978-1979 and arriving to the conclusion that the teachers who were not holding the post-qualification teaching experience of three years from recognized Ayurvedic college as referred to under the Statute would not be eligible for absorption in terms of the notification dated 09th December, 1986, is a clear misconception of law and deserves rejection. [Para 24][1076-E-G]

2. The respondents were unable to justify as to how the person on the basis of academic qualification, if not being permitted to teach, may acquire post qualification teaching experience as referred to under the Statute of the Bihar University Act or by CCIM Act, 1970 for entry into service and, therefore, the academic qualification and post qualification teaching experience of three years at the entry level post i.e. Lecturer in the instant case, are two different ends which are not possible to meet. [Para 26][1077-B-C]

3. In the instant case, each of the appellants before this Court was holding the academic qualification while entered into service in the year 1978-1979 in the private Ayurvedic College and holding teaching experience of more than three years as on the cut-off date 01st June, 1986 in terms of notification dated 09th December 1986, when the Screening Committee was called upon to adjudge the overall suitability of the appellants for absorption and once the appellants were indeed eligible as on the cut-off date i.e. 01st June, 1986, the justification tendered by the Committee, in the first instance, that the appellants were not holding the post qualification teaching experience of three years on the date when they were initially appointed in the private Ayurvedic College in the year 1978-1979, is not in conformity with the mandate of the Act 1985 read with notification dated 09th December, 1986. [Para 28][1077-F-H]

4. The High Court under the impugned judgment has completely overlooked the scheme of the Act 1985 read with notification dated 09th December, 1986 pursuant to which the exercise was to be undertaken by the State Government for absorbing teaching/non-teaching employees of private Ayurvedic College and this was the apparent error committed by the High Court which is not sustainable in law and deserves to be set aside. [Para 29][1078-A-B]