Case Background
The petitioner is a woman teacher appointed in a government school in Bihar. Her appointment was based on her success in the Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) conducted in 2011 by the Bihar School Examination Board (BSEB).
Later, in a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), it was brought to the notice of the Patna High Court that many undeserving persons had managed to obtain teacher appointments on the basis of forged academic degrees. Acting on that PIL, the Court ordered an enquiry to identify such teachers.
Pursuant to these directions, an F.I.R. was lodged. In that criminal case, the present petitioner was also made an accused. The allegation was that she had obtained her teaching job by using a forged and fabricated TET certificate.
Even before any final outcome of the criminal investigation, the authorities stopped paying her salary from November 2018 onwards. The stated reason was that an investigation regarding her TET certificate was pending.
Feeling aggrieved, she approached the Patna High Court in this writ petition. She requested two things: first, that her TET certificate issued by BSEB be treated as valid and genuine; and second, that her stopped salary from November 2018 onwards be paid.
What the Court Examined and Decided
The Patna High Court, presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar, first recorded the basic allegation against the petitioner: that she had obtained employment on the basis of a forged TET certificate.
The specific suspicion raised was that, according to some investigation reports, she had failed in Paper-I of the TET examination but was shown as having passed Paper-II. It was assumed that if a candidate failed in Paper-I, she should either not have been allowed to appear in Paper-II, or even if she appeared, her result should not have been published till she cleared both papers. This led to doubt about the genuineness of her TET certificate.
On behalf of the petitioner, her counsel explained the actual scheme of the TET examination. This explanation was central to the Court’s consideration.
According to this scheme, as noted by the Court:
- Candidates who wish to be appointed as teachers for Classes VI to VIII are required to pass only in Paper-I.
- Candidates who wish to be appointed as teachers for Classes I to V are required to pass in Paper-II.
- If a candidate passes both Paper-I and Paper-II, that candidate becomes eligible to apply for teaching posts in all these classes.
From this scheme, the Court drew a clear implication: a candidate who passes only in Paper-II is still eligible for certain teaching posts. Specifically, if the petitioner has passed Paper-II, she is eligible to be appointed as a teacher, in line with the scheme placed before the Court.
The Court then turned to the status of the criminal investigation. During the course of the enquiry conducted by the local police, even though the F.I.R. was lodged by the Vigilance Department, no definite material could be collected against the petitioner to show that she had obtained employment on the basis of a forged TET degree.
However, something serious came to light while examining the investigation reports. Two officers—one from the Vigilance Department and one from the General Police Department—were found to have acted in a reckless manner. They had signed the investigation reports mechanically, without even checking the TET examination scheme or verifying the allegations and the petitioner’s defence.
The petitioner and others lodged a complaint before the Director General of Police about this faulty investigation. An enquiry committee was set up. Before this committee, the two officers admitted that they had signed the reports mechanically, without properly verifying the correctness of the allegations or of the defence.
When this came on record, the Court found it appropriate to issue notice to the Vigilance Department, asking what action had been taken against such irresponsible investigators whose incompetence and mindlessness had caused immense damage to the petitioner and others similarly placed.
In response, the learned Senior Advocate representing the Vigilance Department informed the Court through a counter affidavit that the conduct of the Vigilance Officer had been found absolutely unpardonable. A departmental proceeding had been initiated against him, and he had been awarded the punishment of one black mark.
After considering these developments, the Court recorded the current factual position. First, the petitioner had passed the Paper-II examination of TET. Second, the BSEB itself, in its report, admitted that according to its database the petitioner was shown as having passed in Paper-II. On this basis, BSEB accepted that she was eligible for appointment as a teacher.
The Court further noted that after her appointment, the petitioner had been serving in the school where she was posted. There was no suggestion in the judgment text of any complaint regarding her actual service.
The immediate dispute before the Court was limited: her salary had been stopped since November 2018 on the ground that the investigation regarding her alleged forged certificate was pending.
Taking into account all these factors, the Court decided not to finally pronounce on her guilt or innocence in the criminal case. That matter, the Court held, would depend on the outcome of the ongoing investigation.
At the same time, the Court was conscious that the petitioner had been without salary for a long period based only on suspicion, even when the examination board’s own records showed her as having passed Paper-II.
Therefore, rather than directly ordering payment of arrears itself, the Court adopted a middle path. It directed that if the petitioner files a representation before the Director, Primary Education, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, Patna, within three weeks along with a copy of the Court’s order, the concerned respondent must look into the matter and pass necessary orders.
The Court clearly indicated what these orders should deal with: resumption of the salary of the petitioner, which had been stopped since November 2018 only due to the pendency of the investigation.
However, the Court also made it equally clear that any such decision of the Director, Primary Education, would remain subject to the final outcome of the investigation. If, in the future, the petitioner is found guilty of using a forged certificate, the necessary legal consequences would follow.
To avoid further delay, the Court also directed the police to conclude the investigation at the earliest.
With these observations and directions, the writ petition was disposed of.
Why This Judgment Matters
This judgment is important for many contractual and regular teachers in Bihar whose salaries or appointments are questioned on the ground of alleged forged certificates.
First, the Patna High Court showed that suspicion alone, especially based on careless investigation, is not enough to indefinitely stop a teacher’s earnings. Where the concerned examination board itself confirms a candidate’s pass status, authorities must act carefully.
Second, the Court highlighted that investigating officers must conduct enquiries responsibly. Mechanical signing of reports, without checking basic rules like the TET scheme, can harm innocent employees. In this case, such conduct led to departmental action against the officer.
Third, the judgment provides a practical pathway for affected teachers. Instead of leaving the petitioner helpless until the end of a slow investigation, the Court allowed her to approach the Director, Primary Education, for resumption of salary, while still keeping the door open for future action if she is ultimately found guilty.
For teachers facing similar allegations, this judgment offers a model: they can rely on official exam records and seek administrative reconsideration, even while criminal cases are pending.
Legal Issues and Answers
-
Issue: Can the State withhold a teacher’s salary for years only on the basis of a pending investigation into alleged forged TET certificates, when the examination board’s records show her as having passed?
Answer: The Court did not give a blanket rule, but directed that the competent authority must re-examine the matter in light of BSEB’s confirmation and consider resuming salary, subject to the final outcome of the investigation. -
Issue: What should be done when investigation reports against an employee are based on mechanical and careless inquiry?
Answer: The Court took note of the officers’ misconduct, sought information on action taken, and recorded that departmental proceedings and punishment had followed, indicating that such irresponsible investigation is unacceptable.
Cases Cited by the Court
- The judgment refers generally to a prior Public Interest Litigation regarding forged degrees but does not cite or rely on any specific reported case by name or citation.
Case Details
Case Number: Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 9786 of 2019
Case Title: Chandani Kumari v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ashutosh Kumar
Citation: 2022 (1) PLJR 385
Advocates:
- For the petitioner: Mr. Prince Kumar Mishra, Advocate
- For the State of Bihar: Mr. Ran Vijay Prasad Singh, AC to GA-XII
- For the Vigilance Department: Mr. Anjani Kumar, Senior Advocate; Ms. Archana Palkar Khopde, Advocate; Mr. Arvind Kumar, Advocate
- For the Bihar School Examination Board: Mr. Girijesh Kumar, Advocate
Nature of the case: Writ petition seeking recognition of TET certificate as valid and direction for payment of stopped salary in the backdrop of a pending criminal investigation regarding alleged forged certificates.
Link to the judgment: Patna High Court Judgment
If you found this explanation helpful and wish to stay informed about
how legal developments may affect your rights in Bihar,
you may consider following Samvida Law Associates for more updates.
