Minority school appointments without State-prescribed qualifications are invalid, notwithstanding subsequent acquisition of eligibility.

In 2015, Chakdin +2 High School, a minority school in Nalanda, issued an advertisement for Assistant Teachers, including Sanskrit, prescribing the qualification of a Trained Graduate.

The petitioner, possessing that qualification, applied, was selected, and received an appointment letter dated 28 April 2015. He joined on 2 May 2015.

The petitioner had passed STET only on 21 June 2021.

The Director, Secondary Education rejected approval of his appointment by Memo No. 857 dated 7 July 2022, holding that he lacked the requisite qualification on the date of appointment. His statutory appeal was dismissed by Memo No. 1432 dated 28 November 2022.

Whether the petitioner’s appointment as Assistant Teacher could be approved when he did not possess the State-prescribed STET qualification on the date of advertisement, selection, and appointment.

Whether the Managing Committee of the minority school could validly prescribe the qualification of “Trained Graduate” and make the appointment without complying with the eligibility criteria prescribed by the State Government under the 2011 amendment.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to approval of service from the date of joining or, alternatively, from the date on which he passed the STET examination.

The Court applied Section 3(b)(ii) of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary School (Taking Over Management and Control) (Amendment) Act, 2011, which permits the Managing Committee of a minority secondary school to appoint teachers against State-sanctioned posts only in accordance with the eligibility criteria prescribed under the applicable Bihar Nagar Nikay and Bihar Zila Parishad Secondary and Higher Secondary Teachers (Employment) Rules, and subject to approval by the Director, Secondary Education through the District Education Officer.

Section 18(3)(Kha) of the 1981 Act requires appointments in minority secondary schools to conform to qualifications fixed by the State Government and to obtain the requisite approval.

The Court applied the principle that a candidate must possess the prescribed qualification on the relevant eligibility date and that an appointment must be based on the qualification fixed by the competent authority.

The decision in Shazia Tarannum v. State of Bihar was held distinguishable and incapable of supporting the petitioner’s claim.

Although the petitioner was a Trained Graduate and satisfied the qualification mentioned in the school’s advertisement, the Managing Committee was legally bound to follow the eligibility criteria prescribed by the State Government under the 2011 amendment.

STET was the prescribed qualification for appointment as an Assistant Teacher, but the petitioner admittedly passed STET only on 21 June 2021, several years after his appointment on 2 May 2015.

The school’s advertisement, which prescribed only “Trained Graduate” qualification, was therefore itself contrary to the statutory framework.

The Managing Committee’s power to make appointments in a minority institution did not extend to disregarding State-prescribed eligibility requirements or the statutory approval mechanism.

Passing STET subsequently could not retrospectively validate an appointment that was invalid when made, nor did it entitle the petitioner to approval from either the date of appointment or the date of passing STET.

The Director’s order dated 7 July 2022 and the appellate order dated 28 November 2022 were upheld as lawful and free from infirmity.

The writ petition was dismissed, and no approval of the petitioner’s appointment or consequential salary and service benefits was granted.