Nirmala Kumari & Ors. v. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Background
A large batch of Panchayat primary-school teachers in Bihar, appointed under the Bihar Panchayat Primary Teacher Rules, 2006, faced removal from service after failing a State-conducted evaluation test for the third time. The teachers argued that under the rules they were appointed, the test was meant only to decide pay increments, not to be a ground for termination. The State countered that after the Right to Education Act, 2009 overhauled teacher-eligibility norms, it had become necessary to test and weed out untrained teachers who had been appointed before the new, stricter training requirements came into force.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court agreed that the evaluation test was originally meant only for increments, but noted it was unclear whether these teachers, appointed before the Right to Education Act, had actually been given the training they were entitled to before being tested. The Court cited its own precedent emphasising the importance of properly trained teachers at the primary level. To resolve the matter fairly, it directed that the State give the teachers who had failed three times a further six months of training, followed by one more evaluation test with a prescribed minimum passing mark; only if a teacher failed even after this additional chance could the State lawfully remove them from service. The batch of appeals was disposed of on these terms, with no order as to costs.
Lesson Learnt
Before penalising or dismissing an employee for failing a qualifying test, an employer must first ensure the employee was actually given the training or opportunity the rules promised them, testing someone without first training them, and then punishing them for failing, is unfair even where the test itself is otherwise valid.