PATNA: The Patna high court on Tuesday directed that no exams for headmasters’ recruitment in nationalized primary schools of state be taken till further orders.
The rules formed for their appointment and service conditions have been challenged over mandatory condition of eight years' regular service experience as one of the essentials for qualification and over alleged ambiguity in English and Hindi versions of the law.
Bihar National Primary School Headmaster (Appointment, Transfer, Disciplinary Action and Service Condition) Rules, 2021, was formed in August this year. Overall, creation of 40158 posts of headmasters in same count of nationalised primary schools was okayed by state government cabinet on September 7, 2021.
Two separate writ petitions have been filed before high court by TET-STET Uttirn Niyojit Shikshak Sangh and TET Prarambhik Shikshak Sangh urging it to declare Section 6(V)(A) of Rule as ultra-vires under which minimum eight years of regular service as basic grade of panchayat or urban primary teacher of panchayati raj or urban body institution is mandatory for qualifying as headmaster.
Petitioners have urged that no such condition has been put for graduate teachers and they would be eligible only with their service confirmation.
Petitioners have also urged that clarification be sought on Section 6 (IV) of the rules whose English and Hindi versions seems different.
Petitioners have urged HC for directing government that condition in Section 6 (IV) of English version that a candidate must have qualified TET in 2012 or onwards as essential qualification for appointment as headmaster, should prevail.
In Hindi, word ‘niyukt’ has been added Section 6 (IV), which the petitioners are urging that it means those teachers appointed in 2012 or onwards with TET qualification would be eligible for post of headmaster.
They have also urged that all basic grade TET teachers be allowed to participate in selection process till disposal of the petitions.
Appearing for state, advocate general Lalit Kishore submitted that the ambiguity in English and Hindi version is due to typing error and it would be rectified.
A counter affidavit on behalf of state government but the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice PB Bajanthri remained dissatisfied with it.
Appearing for petitioners, Counsels Mrityunjay Kumar, Arinjay Kumar, Kumar Shanu and Amrit Kumar submitted that not only for the error but condition of eight years’ experience for appointment has also been challenged.
After hearing both sides, the court directed state government to file another counter affidavit within four weeks’ time. It fixed December 7 for hearing the petitions again.
