Blogs >> Miscellaneous >>
Validity of Sangeet Visharad From Pracheen Kala Kendra(Chandigarh)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.1630 of 2007
Onkar Kumar, son of Shri Awadhesh Prasad Singh, resident of Village Nandnama, P.S. Ramgarh Chowk, Dist. Lakhisarai.
------- Petitioner
Versus
1. The State of Bihar.
2. The Secretary, Human Resources Development Department, New Secretariat, Patna.
3. The District Superintendent of Education, Lakhisarai, Police Station Lakhisarai, Dist. Lakhisarai.
4. The Chairman, Nagar Panchayat Parishad, Barharia, P.S. Barharia, Dist. Lakhisarai.
5. Sri Mritunjay, son of Sri Arbind Kumar ‘Bharat’, Resident of Village Manjosh, Post Office Manjohs, P.S. Sikandara, Dist. Jamui.
----------- Respondents
-----------
7
03.8.2011
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for following relief:-
“1. That this application is being filed for issuance of an appropriate writ or direction commanding the Respondents to appoint the petitioner to the post of Sangeet Teacher in Nagar Panchayat Barharia by canceling the appointment of Respondent No.5 which is not based on merit and arbitrarily appointment has been made ignoring the merit and fair play.”
Mr. Bamdeo Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that when the petitioner had secured 453 out of 600 and the respondent no.5 had secured only 448 out of 600, the logical outcome will be that the
2
petitioner would be deemed to have secured more marks and thus, he ought to have been appointed on the post of Sangeet Teacher in place of the respondent no.5. Attractive though the aforementioned submission may be, but when the same is tested in background of the Rules framed for appointment of Nagar Shikshak, it is found that the procedure for evaluating the merit point (Medha Ank) is entirely separate. Rule 6(iv) therein provides that the percentage of each year of the examination will have to be clubbed together and only average of percentage will have to be taken out for all the candidates. Based on that consideration, the respondent no.5 was found to have secured 74.03% as against the petitioner securing only 73.56%. In this regard it would be also useful to quote the comparative marks of the petitioner vis-à-vis respondent no.5, which reads as follows:- “Petitioner Onkar Kumar – Secured Marks
Full Marks
Marks Obtained
Percent Of
Matric
150
97
64.67%
Inter
150
112
74.67%
Graduate
300
244
81.34%
3
220.68
Medha Marks
220.68/3
73.56%
Respondent No.5, Mritunjay Kumar- Secured Marks
Full Marks
Marks Obtained
Percent Of
Matric
150
110
73.34%
Inter
150
108
72.00%
Graduate
300
230
76.34%
222.01
Medha Marks
222.01/3
74.003%”
Thus once this Court would find that a common criteria was followed for evaluating the merit of all the candidates including that of the petitioner and the respondent no.5 as per Rule 6(iv) of the Nagar Shikshak Appointment Rules, 2006, it will have little option but to hold that the selection and appointment of the respondent no.5 on the basis of higher merit point cannot be questioned by the petitioner, inasmuch as, he had secured lesser merit point in such evaluation.
At this stage, Mr. Pandey would try to develop another argument by projecting that the respondent no.5 is a Matriculate as also has completed the course of Sangeet Visharad and the course of Sangeet Visharad is
4
equivalent to Intermediate and, therefore, if the Respondent no. 5 had passed his Matriculation examination in the year 1999 as also the final year of Sangeet Visharad in the year 1999, there was definitely an anomaly in the qualification acquired by the respondent no.5 and as such, his candidature for appointment ought to have been rejected.
Such submission of Mr. Pandey is based on certain assumption, namely, he presumes that the Sangeet Visharad course is a higher course than Matriculation and that one can be admitted in Sangeet Visharad Course only when he or her has passed Matriculation examination. There is, however, nothing on record to establish and prove this plea. As a matter of fact, when Mr. Pandey had referred to the prescribed form of Pracheen Kala Kendra, Chandigarh from where the respondent no.5 had passed his Sangeet Visharad course, he could himself actually not get any such support from the said document because under the Important Instruction No.4, the only requirement is of age and that too for appearing in Visharad Final (5th year). The Respondent no. 5 had admittedly completed
5
sixteen years of age in the year 1999 when he had appeared in the Sangeet Visharad final year examination as is evident from the certificate of his result of final year Sangeet Visharad. Thus, it would be difficult for this Court to accept the submission of Mr. Pandey that the respondent no.5 could not have simultaneously pursued the vocational course of Sangeet Visharad and the educational course of Matriculation. That being so, this Court must hold that the challenge of the petitioner for the appointment of the respondent no.5 is wholly misconceived. In the result, this writ application fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Rsh
(Mihir Kumar Jha, J.)
|
|
