Allow Cookies!
By using our website, you agree to the use of cookies
This case is about public interest litigation i.e. PIL by Sudhir Kumar Ojha before the honorable Patna High Court. The PIL was filed to issue a writ in the form of mandamus which would direct the respondents of this case to fill up the vacant and sanctioned posts of teaching staffs of Rajkiya Tibbi College, Patna, Rajkiya R.B.T.S. Homeopathic College Muzaffarpur, Rajkiya Unani Colleges, and Rajkiya Ayurvedic Medical Colleges where the seats had been vacant for a long period of time.
The petitioner had raised the issue that the vacant seats and sanctioned posts of Tibbi, Unani, Homeopathic and Ayurvedic Colleges of the State had not been filled up. And this was eventually affecting the education of the students. The petitioner further added that the non-appointment of the teachers in the aforesaid colleges were also affecting the future of the students and even the future generation as students are considered as the future of the country. Thus non-appointment of the teachers or the teaching staff in their sanctioned posts was a violation of Article 21-A of the Indian Constitution.
The learned counsel for the respondents i.e. both the State authorities and Bihar Public Service Commission stated that they were not in denial that there were sanctioned vacant seats for the teaching faculty in the Tibbi, Unani, Homeopathy, and Ayurvedic Colleges of the State. They added that the Bihar Public Service Commission was trying to complete the recruitment process and send the recommendation to the State Government on or before the 31st of January, 2019. The learned counsel for the State also added that after the mentioned date, within a period of four weeks, they would make the aforementioned appointment on basis of the recommendation made by the Bihar Public Service Commission.
The Court after listening to the detentions of both the parties started to analyze certain facts. In regard to the case, the Court also referred to some judgments that were made by the honorable Supreme Court. The Court referred to the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. and others v State of A.P. and others (1993). In this case, the honorable Supreme Court held that though the right to education is not stated expressly as a fundamental right, yet it can be observed from the right to life that is guaranteed under Article 21 of the Indian Constitution. The honorable Supreme Court also stated that the right to education has been treated as one of transcendental importance. It is also observed that without education being provided to the citizens of the country, the objectives that are mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution can never be achieved, and eventually the Constitution would fail. In another case Secretary, Mahatma Gandhi Mission, and Another v Bharatiya Kamgar Sena and Others (2014), the honorable Supreme Court highlighted the right to education in the life of human beings. The honorable Supreme Court stated that the importance of the role of education in the life of human beings is well known to the society which invented the concept of Zero. Even during the Colonial Rule, the Colonial Rulers had encouraged the establishment of the educational institution. The framers of the Indian Constitution in Article 29(2) [17] states about aid out to State funds to the educational institutions and in Article 30(2) [18] states about the aid to educational institutions. This proves that the framers of the Constitution had taken note of the need to financially support educational institutions established even by non-state actors.
The Patna High Court also stated that education is one of the most important tools for individuals to lead an economically productive life. An economically productive life improves the quality of life among individuals and family members. It also to some extent benefits society at large. The Court also observed the fact in the case of Unni Krishnan J.P. and Others v the State of Andhra Pradesh and Others in the year 1993 that education is the second-highest sector of budgeted expenditure after the defense and also it constitutes three percent of the Gross National Product is spent in education. However, in the eighty-sixth amendment act of the Indian Constitution Article 21A was inserted in the Constitution of India. Article 21A of the Indian Constitution states about the Right to Education. The Patna High Court also stated that Education is also an important factor for maintaining democracy and the economic well being of society. The Patna High Court also referred to another case State of Orissa and Another v Mamta Mohanty. In this case, the honorable Supreme Court stated that the excellence of instruction provided by the educational institutions mainly depends directly on the teaching staff, and therefore unless they themselves possess a good academic record or minimum qualifications as prescribed as eligibility, the standard of education cannot be maintained.
After observing the facts, the High Court opined that as per the learned counsel for the State had stated that that they would complete the recruitment process by 31str of January 2019 even after a lot of delays, this is affecting the students. The non-filling of the sanctioned teaching staff in the above-mentioned colleges were affecting the fundamental rights of the students that were guaranteed under Article 21-A of the Constitution. Thus, the Patna High Court directed the Bihar Public Service Commission to send the recommendations to the State Government on or before 31.12.2018 and thereafter the State shall make the appointment on or before 31.01.2019.
86540
103860
630
114
59824