Holding

The Court held that the State must implement its undertaking by giving priority to trained teachers and disposed of the contempt petition accordingly.

Summary

The State of Bihar had undertaken, in an affidavit, to recruit and fill vacant teacher posts in its schools, giving priority to trained teachers. The State later claimed that the number of trained teachers was insufficient and that no selection test would be required, leading the petitioner to file a contempt petition alleging non‑compliance with the undertaking. The State responded with a second affidavit dated 7 February 2007, reiterating that priority would be given to trained teachers and that untrained teachers would only be considered if trained candidates were unavailable. The Court examined whether the State's statements satisfied its earlier commitment and whether the petitioner's allegations warranted contempt proceedings. Finding the State’s categorical assurance that trained teachers would be appointed on a priority basis sufficient, the Court directed the State to implement the undertaking in both letter and spirit. Consequently, the contempt petition was disposed of with a direction to the State to appoint trained teachers as promised.

Issues considered

Whether the State of Bihar is in contempt of court for allegedly failing to comply with its undertaking to recruit teachers.
Whether the affidavit dated 7 February 2007 constitutes a satisfactory clarification of the State's recruitment policy.
Whether the Court can direct the State to implement its undertaking without finding formal contempt.

Legislation cited

Constitution of Indias. Article 21A

Subjects

contempt of courteducation policyteacher recruitmentstate undertakingfree and compulsory educationArticle 21ABihar

Judgment

)
NANO KISHORE OJHA A
v.
MADANMOHAN JHA

MARCH 19, 2007

[DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN AND AL TAMAS KABIR, JJ.] B

Contempt of Court-Plan of restructuring entire school education in
State of Bihar-Undertaking by the State to recruit and fill in the vacant
posts of teachers-Non-compliance of-Contempt petition-Held: In view of C
the statement by the State that priority would be given to the trained teachers
in appointment and also the clarifications made, petition disposed of with
the direction to implement the undertaking.

The government in its 'agenda for good governance' has chartered a
policy framework for education in the State. State of B.ihar filed affidavit D
undertaking to recruit and fill in the vacant posts of teachers in the School.
In the meantime, it decided to recruit the trained teachers on the vacant posts
available in the State of Bihar and that since the number of available trained
teachers in the State were expected to be less than the available vacancies, no
test would be· required for selection. State of Bihar did not give effect to the
said undertaking. The petitioner then filed a contempt petition. State of Bihar E
filed an affidavit dated 07.02.2007 in reply explaining the change of
circumstances. It stated that priority has been given to trained teachers in
appointment and only if trained teachers were not available in sufficient
numbers, the case of untrained teachers would be considered by the Authority.
Petitioner filed a rejoinder disputing the statement made by the State.
F
Disposing of the Contempt petition, the Court

HELD: In view of the categorical statement made that priority will be
given to the trained teachers in appointment and also the clarification made
in the affidavit dated 7.2.2007, the State ofBihar is directed to implement the
undertaking given by it earlier and also by the affidavit dated 7.2.2007, in G
letter and spirit by appointing the trained teachers on priority basis.
(Para SJ (182-El

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Contempt Petition (C) No. 207 of
2006.
179 H
180 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A In
Special Leave Petition (C) No. 22882 of2004.

L.N. Rao, Santosh Kumar, M.F.A. Shuttari and Mushtaq Ahmad for the
Petitioner.
B
Kaliash Vasdev, Gopal Singh and Ankur Raj for the Respondents.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by

DR. AR. LAKSHMANAN, J. I. Heard Mr. L.N. Rao, learned Senior
C Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Kailash Vasdev, learned Senior Counsel for
the respondent.

2. The State of Bihar by its affidavit dated 18.1.2006 filed in this Court
has stated thus:

D .........................
4. That it is submitted that the government in its 'agenda for good
,__
governance' has chartered a policy framework for education in
the State. As regards the school education, it is committed to
recruit and fill in the vacant posts of teachers on top priority;
reactivate teacher's training for motivational re-orientation, for
E enhancing their capability and quality of' teaching; and for
constructing and repairing of school buildings. In addition the
government is also setting up a Committee of Experts to suggest
comprehensive reforms in all areas of education so as to raise its
standard and quality.
F 5. That in the meantime, it has been decided that trained teachers
be recruited on the vacant posts available in the State of Bihar.
The Bihar Elementary Teachers Appointment Rules, 2003 having
been quashed by the Patna High Court, new r~cruitment rules are
contemplated to facilitate recruitment of trained teachers in a
G · decentralized manner, by giving them age relaxation as ordered
by the High Court.

6. That Chapters 6 and 7 of the Bihar Education Code relating to
oriental education and hostels and messes will be kept in mind,
as directed by the Patna High Court, while making recruitment of
H teachers.
NANO KISHORE OJHA v. MADANMOHAN JHA [LAKSHMANAN, J.] 181

7. That it is respectfully submitted that since the number of available A
)
trained teachers in the State is expected to be less than the
available vacancies, no test for selection is required. To that
extent, a reference to this Bihar Public Service Commission for
initiating the process of recruitment of trained teachers may not
be necessary, and the orders of this Hon'ble Court and of the
Patna High Court in this regard may be modified."
B

3. According to the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, the said
undertaking and in particular para 7 of the said un~ertaking have not been
given effect to by the State of Bihar. An Affidavit in reply dated 7 .2.2007 on
behalf of the sole contemn or (for State of Bihar) has been filed explaining the
change of circumstances. Paragraphs 8 to 14 of the said affidavit read thus:
c
8. That it is respectfully submitted that the State ofBihar has a total
of about 196 lakh of children in the age group of 6-14 years. The
State is aware of its constitutional duty of providing free and
compulsory education to children in this age group, as postulated
D
in Article 21 A of the Constitution. By taking into account 24 lakh
children studying in private schools, the State requires a total of
4.30 lakh teachers to teach remaining 172 lakh children in the ratio
of l :40, fixed as the norm under the National Policy on Education.
Presently it has had only I. I 0 lakh teachers on regular basis and
about I lakh contract teachers (contract for I I months) on a E
salary of Rs. I 500/- per month only.
9. That in compliance of the assurance given to the Hon'ble Patna
High Court by the State Government and also as a part of the
plan t1.. restructure the entire school education in the State of
Bihar, the government has taken a series ofmeasures·as detailed E
below:
_J
(a) Opening of 15,000 new schools

(b) Developing an integrated plan for school construction

(c) Revitalizing teacher-training institutions G
(d) Revamping the mid-day meal scheme etc.

IO. That it is respectfully stated that with regard to the recruitment
and deployment of teachers, the State has taken several major
policy decisions as detailed below:
H
182 SUPREME COUR,T REPORTS [2007] 4 S.C.R.

A (a) Abolish the system of contract teachers
(

(b) Confirm around one lakh contract teachers with reasonable
salaries and train them under the NCTE approved training
programme
(c) Provide conducive service conditions for the teachers."
B
4. In pragraph 17 of the said affidavit in reply dated 7.2.2007, it is stated
that priority has been given to trained teachers in appointment and only
if trained teachers are not available in sufficient numbers, the case of
untrained teachers are considered by the concerned by the 'Panchayati Raj
Institute (PR/) to· achieve the constitutional goal of -free and ·compulsory
C education for children'from age 6-14, and in thinegard the State of Bihar and
other answering respondents are complying with the orders of the High Court
and also of this Court. A rejoinder has also been filed by the petitioner
disputing the statements made by the State of Bihar in the affidavit dated
722007.
D
5. In view of the categorical statement now made·that the priority will •
be given to the trained teachers in appointment and.also the clarification made
in paragraphs 19 to 22 of aforesaid affidavit dated 7.2.2007;we direct the State
of Bihar to implement the undertaking given by the State ofBihar earlier and
also now by the present affidavit dated 7.2:2007 in letter and spirit by
E appointing the trained teachers on priority basis.

The ·Contempt Petition is disposed of accordingly.

NJ. Contempt Petition disposed of.

.....

L

\-