Contempt case against officers

PATNA: The Patna High Court on Tuesday initiated contempt of court proceedings against primary education department’s director Arun Kumar Singh and secretary Anil Kumar after hearing a writ petition filed for quashing the amendment made by the state government to the Bihar Primary School Teacher Appointment Rules, 2003, as part of the state government notification no.1655 dated August 18, 2003.
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ravi S Dhavan and Justice S K Singh, however, allowed 14 days’ time to the two IAS officers to show causes for “concealing facts from the court and misleading it� in the matter relating to lowering of eligibility criteria for appointment of elementary school teachers, ignoring the provisions of National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) Act, 1993. The matter will be heard again after a week.
Law secretary Vasudeo Ram, who had been specially summoned by the bench, was directed to find out how many intermediate trained teachers are available in the state for appointment in elementary schools. He was also asked to prepare a select list of untrained teachers to avail of the relaxation in the eligibility criteria for appointment given by NCTE for one year and to train them within five years from the date of appointment.
The bench took a dim view of the absence of advocate general (AG) Shashi Anugrah Narain despite high court notification and directed Ram to tell chief minister Rabri Devi that the AG is not taking high court notifications seriously. Even the CM did not file an affidavit in the matter although the high court had been insisting on the same since March 18, the bench observed.
The bench held the Bihar government responsible for the present decline of elementary education in the state as it did not take the issue seriously. The state government lacked will power and determination as it did not feel involved. Bihar was made most illiterate state of the country. The state government did nothing during the last 14 years to improve elementary education in the state, the bench observed.
Even a legislative council committee, in its report tabled in the House in 1966, had held inaction on the part of state government responsible for decline of elementary education. In 1995 when the Bihar government was asked in the state assembly to submit a report on the state of elementary education, it failed to give, and the secretary-level officer was telling lies in the court, the bench maintained.
It said it failed to understand why the matter concerning appointment of elementary school teachers was taken from Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) and handed over to Staff Selection Commission (SSC).
If BPSC had no members, members of SSC should have been transferred there, the bench observed.